Talk:Syrian desert

Calling the Iraq War "Illegal" is POV and not in place

There is no such thing as a UN "verdict". Insisting on inserting this POV (and what the UN Secratry says is UN is POV) is clearly disruptive. If you do it once more I will asked that you be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations Secretary-General called the war illegal. This is duly cited and not my POV. One more instance of vandalism and I will report you to Wikipedia administrators, and I wouldn't, it appears, be the first to do so. Izzedine (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is the UN's description of the Iraq War relevant to this article? AlexiusHoratius 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexius, the UN's description of the Iraq War is relevant to the Iraq War, which constitutes the only section in the article. Izzedine (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. It may indeed be relevant to the Iraq War, but this article is not about the Iraq War, it's about a desert. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Tony Blair are also relevant to the Iraq War, but that doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. To phrase my question another way, how exactly does the UN's description of the Iraq War better help the reader understand the Syrian Desert? AlexiusHoratius 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN's description of the Iraq War, being eminently explicit, is critical and pertinent to it's description in recorded narratives. Izzedine (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this article, I think is the question. Are you saying that every single incident of the phrase "Iraq war" on Wikipedia should be replaced with "illegal Iraq war"? That's the only real defense for insisting on inserting it in this, because there is no particular special context to warrant using the phrase on this article. Furthermore, there is a difference between saying "illegal war" versus "war an important person has said is illegal". The latter is easily sourced, 100% accurate, and provides context. The former is portraying a point of view, however relevant, as a universal fact. Is the perspective of the UN "critical and pertinent" to every single mention of the war in any "recorded narrative"? Why? And if it is, shouldn't it be presented as the perspective of the UN? Also, I'd like to strongly discourage characterizing good faith edits as "vandalism". Disagreement over an edit does not make it vandalism. Relatedly, let's please not wave blocking sticks at each other? - Vianello (Talk) 04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, it's relation to the article is based on the article's only section being in reference to the event, however, even in circumstances where a cited contextual description had little relation to an article's title, it doesn't follow that the description is misplaced.

• "Are you saying that every single incident of the phrase "Iraq war" on Wikipedia should be replaced with "illegal Iraq war"?"

• No, I'm not saying that (Nor have I included this description anywhere else on WP), I'm saying that a verbatim cited inclusion on some references is qualified.

• "There is a difference between saying "illegal war" versus "war an important person has said is illegal""

• The senior-most figure of the preeminent supranational institution and authority governing world affairs and foreign relations isn't just "an important person", his judgements regarding incidents of conflict represent the eminent verdict and concordance of the 192 United Nations.

• "Shouldn't it be presented as the perspective of the UN?"

• Yes, I fully agree that it should.

• "Relatedly, let's please not wave blocking sticks at each other?"

• I haven't heard this phrase before, sorry. Izzedine (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any place in adding an a description or adjective to the Iraq war, except those that will help clarify which war we are talking about (hence the year 2003). Adding the UN condemned is not in place - why mentioned the detractors instead of supporters.

A separate issue is that it is a bit strange that of all evens that occurred in the deseret what Wikipedia is reporting about is the Iraq War. 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the desert, not about the legality of the war. I've blocked Iz for 3RR, but I'm also going to revert back to the non-Iz version. There is no need for a compromise here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. I do agree in the long run that the insertion has no place/relevance here. I'm just the compromise-seeking sort personally. There are probably also less polite terms for my type, but for those inclined to use them, I'll let you imagine them yourself. ;) - Vianello (Talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Syrian Desert vs Arabian Desert

What makes the Syrian Desert different than the Arabian Desert? Where is the border? I would say that the whole area is contiguous. Meursault2004 (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many cultural and historical differences. Also natural differences, for example, the Syrian Desert is much colder than the Arabian Desert. 47.61.30.1 (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Location

The article can not open with the fact that 85% of Jordan is composed of this desert, but then in the next paragraph it mentions that the Harrat al-Sham is one of the western boundaries of the desert. The vast majority of Jordan lies west of the Harrat al-Sham. Either the Harrat al-Sham is the western boundary of the desert, in which case 85% of Jordan is not included in this desert, or the desert inlcudes the Harrat al-Sham, in which case it's not a boundary at all. I know natural regions don't always have definitive boundaries, but this is a pretty large discrepency between the articles opening and the "location" section.

There also needs to be some general description of the general southern boundary. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a useful map. ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)