Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

Croatia

To the best of my knowledge (sorry, this is not my speciality), Vukovar has not been continuously inhabited since Vučedol culture. See also Vukovar#Early_history. It should probably be removed from this page.

According to Liburnians#Settlements, the oldest continuously inhabited cities in Croatia would be Zadar and some smaller towns (Krk, Rab, Nin). I've also seen some discuussions about Pula and Stari_Grad,_Croatia, so these may be worth looking at. Stari_Grad,_Croatia has been founded 384 BC and promptly attacked by Liburnians from Zadar - quite a good reason to believe that Zadar is older...

A great naval battle was recorded a year after the establishment of Pharos colony by a Greek inscription in Pharos (384 – 383 BC) and by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (80 – 29 BC), initiated by conflicts between the Greek colonists and the indigenous Hvar islanders, the Liburnians, who asked their compatriots for support. 10,000 Liburnians sailed out from their capital Idassa (Zadar), led by the Iadasinoi (people of Zadar), and laid siege to Pharos.

I found some claims on the web that some recent archeological work has shown that Vinkovci has been settled since 6300 BC: Vinkovci su zapravo najstariji europski grad - zaista najstarije urbano naselje u kojem se u kontinuitetu živi više od 8300 godina, tvrdi prof. dr. sc. Aleksandar Durman, zagrebački arheolog koji radi na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu. U središtu toga najstarijeg europskog grada (Vinkovaca), na lokaciji koju arheolozi zovu „tell Tržnica", Durman je 1977., na mjestu današnjeg hotela, pronašao "nalaze starčevačke kulture, te ih datirao u 6300. g. pr. Kr."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.164.126 (talk) 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Naples

The informations about naples are completely wrong, need update: Parthenope (VIII century), Neapolis (VI century). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.150.153 (talk) 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Where would Siberia be in?

I don't think it fits in any of the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:17b6:1200:7d73:951b:9b20:cba2 (talk) 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jericho

Why is Jericho not on here? 10,000BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.145.253.33 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they added it to middle east 2601:603:703:4F32:F830:4598:450A:299B (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Article makes no sense

This article is terribly formatted.

It shouldn't be divided by continent, but instead have absolute values.

Other articles, like world's tallest mountains, include this information and have the region as a separate field in the chart, so you can sort it by region, age, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.145.253.33 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not doing all that work. Richard75 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There older continuously inhabited cities

Jericho, Damascus and Urfa are continuously inhabited since 11000-10000 years before present. 178.246.234.156 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The first two are already listed, and the latter may be included with a reliable reference to support the claim. Mindmatrix 13:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Klang (city)

@Austronesier: Can you please verify if the article by Ramli & Nik Abdul Rahman (2010) that was cited by the IP (diff), supports the claim of continuous habitation since 200 BC? You can access their article here; it is written in Malay. The second reference they added was to the book A Survey of South-East Asian Prehistory (1976) by Robert L. Hoover, which unfortunately also lacks a precise page number; however, the only mentions of Klang appear to be on page 30, in the following passage, which doesn't support the claim of continuous habitation:

• In 1905, three large bronze bells were found near Klang. They had typical Dongsonian decorative motifs and were dated to about 200 B.C. The bells were about two feet high and were struck like gongs, as they had no clappers. Part of a bronze kettle-drum was discovered in Pahang in 1926 after a flood at Batu Pasir Garam. A second drum fragment was found in 1944 at Klang. Naturalistic decorative patterns indicate that these drums are Heger's Type I, perhaps being cast in the second century A.D.

Thanks in advance for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Kumasi

@Demetrios1993. I cited 3 pages. The first page, xxxvii lists that Kumasi emerged as the capital Ashanti in 1680. The second and third cited pages are pages 200 to 201 where it states Kumasi was "founded in 1680" and the pages narrate the history of the city until the 21st century where it serves as the capital of the Ashanti Region. Here is the source once more specifically page xxxvii and here is page 200—201 (https://books.google.com/books?id=bi_2EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA200&dq=the+first+half+of+the+19th+century+was+the+golden+age+of+kumasi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwyOHshNSFAxUuUkEAHeYcBmEQuwV6BAgJEAg#v=onepage&q=the%20first%20half%20of%20the%2019th%20century%20was%20the%20golden%20age%20of%20kumasi&f=false) Please check it again.

References

Kwesi Yema (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kwesi Yema: I saw the three pages you cited, but per the explanation in my edit summary (diff), I didn't see any explicit mention of Kumasi being continuously inhabited since 1680, or something along those lines. Pages 200–201 present a quick summary of the settlement's history after its foundation in 1680, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was inhabited without any interruption. For example, in that small summary we also read the following, which brings into question the claim of continuous inhabitation:

pp. 200–201: But the British occupied Kumasi in 1874. The palace of the Asantehene was destroyed and much of the city was burned down. Recovery was not complete before the English returned in 1896. Once again much of the town was destroyed, and this time the Asantehene Prempe I was carried away into exile.

Assuming continuous inhabitation since 1680 in this case would be improper editorial synthesis, which is a form of original research. Having said that, at least personally, I am not that strict about items that are about post–1500 foundations; in such cases, I wouldn't have a problem with non-academic reliable sources which either make an explicit statement about continuous inhabitation, or provide a detailed historical timeline for the respective settlement without any gaps. Unfortunately, the summary that you cited doesn't make any explicit statements, has some gaps in the historical timeline it presents, and quotes such as the one I shared above could even imply a brief interruption in the inhabitation of Kumasi. I also found another reliable source, which corroborates my aforementioned assumption on the interruption of Kumasi's inhabitation.

From Yaa Asantewaa and the Asante-British War of 1900–1 (2003) by Albert Adu Boahen; edited by Emmanuel K. Akyeampong:

pp. 176–177: But there were some negative impacts too, all of which, fortunately, were overcome in the long run. The first was the widespread destruction of life and property during the War. Thousands of Asante were killed, whole villages and towns were razed to the ground, most of the 77 wards of Kumasi were burnt down and Kumasi was left as a deserted village. Fortunately, it did not take even a decade for the process of reconstruction and rehabilitation to get going and by the time of the repatriation of Prempeh, Kumasi was already showing all the signs of a modern city, and well on the way to becoming the "Garden City of West Africa".

I could consider a compromise of reinstating the item with a {{better source needed}} tag, which would only be meant as a temporary solution; but, in this case it seems that there was indeed a brief interruption in the inhabitation of the settlement. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, reinstate with a "better source neesed tag." Kwesi Yema (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't support the reinstatement of the "Kumasi" item with a tag, and furthermore, the {{better source needed}} tag is meant to indicate inline citations that link to insufficiently reliable sources; but, in the case we are discussing I questioned the validity of the claim, not the reliability of the respective source. The claim for the continuous inhabitation of Kumasi since 1680 failed verification and is the result of improper editorial synthesis; tags such as {{failed verification}} and {{dubious}} would be more appropriate. The claim is even negated by a different reliable source that I shared above, which speaks of Kumasi being "burnt down" and – for a brief period – left as a "deserted village". Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well noted. Kwesi Yema (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is Lin village removed from this list when it has been inhabited for 8500 years.

Lin a village in southeastern Albania is believed to been built at least 8500 years ago by carbon dating by neutral foreign archaeologists.Don't do politics in history,just that Greece might have the oldest,it was removed by a Greek for political reasons.Re add Lin village from Albania as top 1. 79.106.33.71 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

City of Susa

Susa in Iran is one of the oldest known settlements in the region, whose construction dates back to 4200 years BC.Despite this, the first found traces of a residential village in it date back to 7000 BC. 37.255.155.37 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The page is about present-day cities that have been continuously inhabited. If you can share a reliable source supporting this for Susa, we will include it in the list. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Phoenician-founded cities in Morocco

@Demetrios1993: I pinged you because I noticed that you're active in this page. My request is to add Phoenician-founded cities in Morocco. The most known ones, I guess, are Tangier (Tingis) and Lixus (modern-day Larache).

Tangier: I remember two years ago Tangier was in the list but I don't know how and why it disappeared (maybe Vandalism attack?), Acording to Tingi article: "A settlement in Tingis began, at the earliest, in the 10th century BC by Phoenecians, before being settled around the beginning of the 6th century BC by Carthaginian colonists, who variously recorded the name of their settlement as TNG (Punic: 𐤕𐤍𐤂), TNGʾ (𐤕𐤍𐤂𐤀), and TYNGʾ (𐤕𐤉𐤍𐤂𐤀). The town is sometimes connected to the voyages of Hanno the Navigator."

And according to Tangier: "Tangier was founded as a Phoenician colony, possibly as early as the 10th century BCE and almost certainly by the 8th century BCE.Roller (2006), p. 34"

Lixus (in modern-day Larache): According to the Oxford handbook of African Archaeology (page 769), Classical literary sources suggest that a Phoenician sanctuary dedicated to Heracles (identified with the Phoenician god Melqart) was established at Lixus, modern-day Morocco, on the Atlantic coast. This occurred before the founding of Cadiz, which is traditionally dated to around 1110 BC.

While according to Lixus: "Lixus (Berber : ⵍⵓⴽⵓⵙ) is an ancient city founded by Phoenicians (8th–7th century BC) before the city of Carthage." and "Phoenicians first settled in Lixus in the 8th or 7th centuries BC and the city had become part of a chain of Phoenician cities along the Atlantic coast of ancient Morocco; other major settlements further to the south are Chellah (called Sala Colonia by the Romans) and Mogador."

But I see there is a problem here since Cathage is known to be founded in 814 BC. Or maybe it was founded first and was settled later?

I think I have provided enough sources to add those cities in the list. There are other cities like Mogador (modern-day Essaouira) in Morocco that are also founded by Phoenicians and I think I can provide sources for them as well. Tyben^Welcome 20:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

References

@Tyben: Thanks for pinging me. First of all, let me clarify that the scope of this stand-alone list is about present-day cities that have been continuously inhabited; that is, without interruption. If you can share reliable sources supporting this for the settlements you mentioned above, then of course, I wouldn't object to their inclusion. However, nothing in the preceding text says anything about continuous inhabitation for either of the cities you mentioned. Furthermore, even if it did say, we cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source; please read WP:CIRCULAR. Also, I have full access to The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, and it actually gives a slightly different quote; maybe you have a different edition. The item of "Tangier" was removed on 6 August 2023 by M.Bitton, who provided a valid reason for its removal in their edit summary (diff). Less than a month ago, another editor tried to add the item of "Tangier" (diff), and this time it was removed by myself due to failed verification (diff). Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As Demetrios1993 stated, I removed it along with other cities, such as Algiers (see diff). If you are interested, I suggest you read the original proposal to clean-up the article; though, from what I can tell, there are still plenty of cities that shouldn't be in this list. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Americas St John's

Harbour grace was settled in 1583, listing St Johns instead is incorrect. He who isn't busy being born, is busy dying. (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Being settled in 1583, doesn't necessarily mean being continuously inhabited since 1583. The item of "St. John's" is already tagged with {{citation needed}}; please provide a source supporting your claim, and we will correct the year. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Dates of continuous occupations

@Demetrios1993

First off, I really appreciate the efforts you put into evaluating the sources that are being cited in this article.

There are a bunch of stuff though that are not supported by sources in this article. I figured it'd be better if we discuss current and future issues concerning the continuous occupations of the cities here, rather than on edit summaries.

-Question: Do you happen to have access to the sources used for Sidon and Zgharta? I think it's necessary to take a look at those so that we make sure the sources talk about continuous occupation since the time period we're looking at.

-The Tarsus' source, even though mentions that it's one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world, doesn't mention exactly since when it has been inhabited.

-Ankara's continuous occupation isn't supported by a source Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whatsupkarren: Indeed, there are still many issues per WP:LISTVERIFY; many items are not supported by any sources, while others that are, would very likely fail verification due to many editors misunderstanding the scope of this stand-alone list. The scope, or the selection criteria, are clearly described in the lead section, as well as the title. Unfortunately, my time is limited as it is, and all I can do for now is to review the introduction of new items; regardless, I wouldn't object to the removal of unsourced content by any editor who chooses to do so.

• Regarding the items of "Sidon" and "Zgharta":
  • The item of "Sidon" includes a URL to the cited page, that should be accessible to everyone. It failed verification, and should be removed from the list. Specifically: In the course of the second millennium B.C. a number of city-states were formed along the Phoenician coast, notably Arwad, Byblos, Sidon and Tyros in the homeland, and later Carthage, which, again, founded colonies in North Africa, Spain and western Sicily (Niemeyer, infra 89–115). – Hansen (2000, p. 20)
  • The item of "Zgharta" includes references to Wetzel & Haller (1945) and Copeland & Wescombe (1966, p. 89); I don't have access to either right now. Regardless, it appears they were copied directly from the first sentence of Zgharta § Ancient history, and the respective content it supports, doesn't really confirm continuous inhabitation. Both references could be tagged with {{request quotation}}, and if nothing is given by a fellow editor, then it should probably be removed from the list. Alternatively, a {{citation needed}} tag could be added, before any potential removal from the list.

• The item of "Tarsus" uses a single reference to Mark (2019), which does specify an approximate year of c. 2,500 BC. Specifically: Tarsus was a city in ancient Cilicia located in the modern-day province of Mersin, Turkey. It is one of the oldest continually inhabited urban centers in the world, dating back to the Neolithic Period. ... the city first appears in Assyrian texts as having been known as Tarsisi by the Akkadians (between c. 2334–2083 BCE) and was called Tarsa by the Hittites in honor of one of their gods. It was already a significant trade center under the Hittites and was most likely developed from a much earlier urban center by the Hatti around 2500 BCE.

• The item of "Ankara" does indeed lack verifiability, and is currently tagged with {{citation needed}}. However, I was quickly able to find a source (not ideal, having been written by a Professor of Urban Design and Planning) supporting the claim, which I will be adding to the article. Specifically: When the decision to designate Ankara as the capital of a modern nation-state was taken in the 1920s, it represented the reinvigoration of a small town that had been inhabited continuously since the twentieth century B.C. – Vale (2008, p. 115)

By the way, the sourcing for the item of "Latakia" remains problematic. The reference that you reused is written by Ruela Pombo (1926), who was a Portuguese missionary, and whose work is quite old and not about the subject; it is a biography of Paulo Dias de Novais, and includes information about the foundation of Luanda (capital of Angola). Was this a mistake? Can you please provide the quote supporting continuous inhabitation since the 2nd millennium BC? The reference doesn't even specify a page number. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 I've recently been having an issue where, when I enter a citation, it appears completely different from what I intended. Here's the source I was trying to add—is it reliable? The author doesn't seem to be a notable historian, but I thought since it was published by Bloomsbury Publishing, it must have been reliable. I happened upon this source in Latakia article.

https://books.google.ae/books?id=ImiDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT258&dq=latakia+inhabited+since+wnd+millennium&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ8-HgivOIAxUoR_EDHQTvD4kQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=latakia%20inhabited%20since%20wnd%20millennium&f=false

"Though the site has been inhabited since the second millennium BC, the modern-day city was first founded in the 4th century BC under the rule of the Seleucid empire." Whatsupkarren (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whatsupkarren: This quote is somewhat vague; it could also refer to when the site was first settled. Furthermore, the book appears to be a travelogue written by Akhil Pandey, who like you say, is not really a specialist in the topic; read his short bio at end of this page. Being published by Bloomsbury Publishing doesn't necessarily establish reliability; please read WP:SOURCEDEF. Anyway, I will replace the Ruela Pombo (1926) reference with it, but I believe that the {{better source needed}} tags have to remain for now. Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Byblos

@Red Phoenician regarding your last edit on this article, CumInCAD doesn't mention Byblos being inhabited continuously since 9000-7000 BC. enicbcmed.eu isn't an academic history source it claims it "finances cooperation projects for a more competitive, innovative, inclusive and sustainable Mediterranean area." Other sources say that "The General Objective of the ENI CBC MED 2014-2020 is to foster fair, equitable and sustainable economic, social and territorial development." Moreover, The author of the cited article, Nada Elias, isn't a reputable scholar. IOP science doesn't mention continuous occupation since 9000 bc.

Moreover, you added an original research in the Notes box claiming that Byblos had a reputation of being the oldest city in antiquity, the source you added says that the ancient writer philo of Byblos wrote that Byblos was the oldest city according to a myth, it doesn’t mention that Byblos had “a reputation” as the oldest city in the in Antiquity as you have added, you also used ResearchGate to support this claim, which is a problematic source. Whatsupkarren (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you put this in the middle of a random section instead of starting a new one. Regardless, all of the sources I added have been published through universities and journals. Sources are based on their publishers, not websites they can be found on, this just shows a basic failure to understand how articles are even published. (WP:COMPETENCE) (Although ResearchGate disgusts me now after reading the page so I supplanted it with Academia.edu even though the source is the same from Sapienza University of Rome) As for CumInCAD, the quote essentially implies its continuous inhabitation but I assume you will disagree with this so let’s just take it to WP:DRN

The fact Byblos’ status was recorded by Sanchuniaton, Philo and Eusebius implies a form of reputation but this is just making a mountain out of a molehill and can be easily reworded. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenician

-Your first source says "Byblos, inhabited since Neolithic times, is one of the oldest cities in the world, boasting between 7,000 and 9,000 years of human presence on the same site."

It doesn't mention continuous human presence—which is the key word here. Moreover, it doesn't say whether it has been inhabited since then until now.

-Regarding the second source, enicbcmed.eu, you haven't provided evidence to support the reliability of this source. I think it clearly isn't reliable enough.

Third source says: "The 8000-years-old site of Byblos city is considered to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world"

That doesn't mean it has been continuously inhabited for 8000 years. Damascus is an 11000 year old site, and also one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, that doesn't mean it has been continuously inhabited for 11000 years. Duhh

Fourth source, which comes from Unesco, doesn't state that the site has been continuously inhabited. "uninterrupted construction" does not necessarily imply continuous human habitation. It's possible that the site was abandoned and reoccupied multiple times throughout its history, with different civilizations contributing to the layers of construction. They may have meant that the city had not been destroyed. Otherwise, they could've said continuous human occupation if that is what they actually meant.

Fifth source says: "The 8000-years-old Byblos city, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world." Again that doesn't mean it has been inhabited for 8000 years. They're not saying here it has been continuously inhabited for 8000 years

Another thing, do you know what BC means? you added that Byblos has been continuously inhabited since 9000-7000 BC. However your sources don't say 9/8/7000 BC they say 9000 years (7000 BC) 8000 years (6000 BC) 7000 years (5000 BC)

To understand that, one only needs a basic comprehension of English and a bit of WP:COMPETENCE

I'm also not making a mountain out of a molehill when I'm simply asking you to follow Wikipedia's policies. You are responsible for everything you add or remove in the article, you need a reliable source that specifically says that the city had a reputation of being the oldest. Otherwise, this is a clear violation of WP:NOR. This is yet another proof that you're failing to show competence in many of your edits. This is not the first time you have done so; there were many times in the past when you added claims that weren't accurately represented in your sources.

As an aside, have you been editing from an IP instead of your account recently? Some IPs (14.200.46.74 and 185.25.195.104) , with edits quite similar to those of yours about Maronites, Aramaic, Lebanon, this article and other ones, have been disruptively editing this article, almost contemporaneously with you, adding Lebanese cities and messing with the dates!

Examples of similar edits: You——IP

This IP, whose edits particularly resemble yours, added lebanese cities less than a day before you Added a citation needed template to a Syrian city. The next edit, less than 24 hours later, was by the other IP, who came and messed with the date of a Syrian city.

(Note academia.edu is also a problematic source. Check RSP

Your input would be appreciated @Demetrios1993! Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself and defaulting to personal attacks/not assuming good faith. You were complaining in the past about people accusing you of sockpuppetry but have no issues with the double standard. I assume this is a form of framing in case anyone speaks about these IPs [1][2]. Again, go to WP:DRN if you have an issue with the sources besides personal opinion. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I moved the new comments under a new thread/discussion. I don't have time to give a thorough reply about every reference that was used, but here are a few quick remarks:

• Publishers are only one aspect used to determine the reliability of a source. Reliable sources may be published via a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both; please see WP:SOURCEDEF. Even self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications; see WP:SELFPUBLISH.
• Regarding the source by El-Khoury, De Paoli & Dorta (2006, pp. 832–839), referred to as "CumInCAD" above, which claims the earliest estimate, none of the authors are subject-matter experts. Furthermore, I agree with User:Whatsupkarren that the cited quote doesn't necessarily imply continuous inhabitation, and of course the relevant quote of "between 7,000 and 9,000 years of human presence on the same site" doesn't pertain to 9,000–7,000 BC, but to approximately 7,000–5,000 BC.
• ResearchGate and Academia.edu have nothing to do with the reliability of a source. They are both social networking platforms whose primary aim is to connect researchers with common interests. They also serve as general repositories, where different users (including academic experts) showcase their work. Please read WP:ACADREP for more information.

By the way, if I don't reply quickly, it's because I am not usually active on a daily basis. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutral and academic response. What about the other 4 sources? (Archived here [3]) is there anything problematic with them? Red Phoenician (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenician I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, I asked a question. These IPs showed very similar edits. It was you who started personalizing, you implied I wasn't competent, and when I showed legitimate concerns about your competency to edit this article, you accused me of personal attacks, aren't you the same user who called me an illiterate previously and ridiculed me for making typos? Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes because for the 5th time or so it falls under WP:COMPETENCE, this doesn't have anything to do with the article at this point so I will just wait for Demetrios1993 response. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I already showed you why your sources don't work, you didn't even bother to respond to them, instead, you ignored all my arguments and claimed that I'm defaulting to personal attacks. But when you claimed I was incompetent it wasn't a personal attack. Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenician: I quickly went through the other four sources. Three of them don't appear to have been written by subject-matter experts either; read the credentials of the authors. The only exception is the article by Nada Elias, which I consider a reliable source; you can read her credentials on page 2 of the cited document (here). Also, I am satisfied both with the cited quote, as well as footnote 4, pertaining to it, which elaborates a little more on the subject; both on page 3:

• These extensive archaeological expeditions resulted in the excavation of at least 1.5 hectares of the site down to bedrock and unveiled the remarkable chronological continuity of the Byblos site, indicating occupation for at least 8,000 years⁴, extending from the Late Neolithic period onward (Fig.3).
• ⁴The site witnessed continuous occupation from 6900 BC until 1926 AD when Dunand conducted excavations. However, the contemporary city of Byblos remains inhabited by residents.

I know Whatsupkarren has challenged the reliability of the source, and thus both of you might want to begin a discussion at WP:RSN. In any case, please remain civil. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)