Talk:Yom Kippur War#Recent weakly-justified revert

{{closed rfc top|I have come to bring closure to this RfC.

Per our policies and guidelines, the determination of WP:CON is WP:NOTAVOTE. There is less than unanimity in this discussion. When this is the case, our policies and guidelines require the closer to close based on whichever argument is supported by {{xt|"the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians"}} after first discarding arguments {{Xt|"that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"}} (see: WP:NHC).

A preliminary pulse check reveals that, in broad strokes, 6 editors support Option 1, 1 supports Option 2, and 2 support either Option 2 or Option 3. There are none who support Option 4. There is another !vote that is indecipherable by the closer and, as such, ignored. For purposes of convenience, I have collapsed the "2 or 3" !voters into Option 2. The adjusted totals, therefore, are: 6 editors support Option 1, 3 supports Option 2.

To determine the view of "responsible" Wikipedians I first conducted a census of which Wikipedians in this discussion were "responsible". To apply this term, I eliminated any Wikipedian topic banned on this subject, as well as obvious WP:SPAs. I, next, began the process of discarding !votes that are "based on personal opinion only" by eliminating all WP:VAGUEWAVEs, as well as any !votes invoking wording or phrases indicative of personal preference, or which made no attempt to invoke even a glancing reference to our policies or guidelines. In all of this I applied a significant amount of leeway, and even the hint of a reference to policy was considered valid. This process did not result in any adjustment to the numerical disposition of opinions.

Next, I began the process of discarding !votes that were based on such an obvious misunderstanding of policies and guidelines that no one would reasonably expect an editor to even bother arguing against it. This process also did not result in any adjustment to the numerical disposition of opinions.

In general terms, the "1" side cited WP:NPOV, a policy, which the "2" side did not effectively dispute. The "2" side implicitly cited MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, a guideline, which the "1" side obliquely, but neither directly nor effectively, disputed.

We have a 2:1 split in "1" versus "2" !voters. Besides their numerical advantage (which is, generally, of limited persuasiveness in closing RfCs but is noted anyway), the "1" side also has an argumentative advantage by advancing an undisputed policy over an undisputed guideline.

There is a consensus that the outcome of the Yom Kippur War not be characterized in the infobox in any manner other than the two-word phrase "See aftermath". In the application of this consensus, it should be clarified that I found no consensus that would require a period be placed after the word "aftermath" and editors can separately discuss whether or not to use a period. While this is, potentially, how the RfC was constructed, no one specifically addressed introducing punctuation to a sentence fragment and I don't believe there was any intention by the "1" !voters that this would form part of the close. Chetsford (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the Yom Kippur War be characterized in any of the following ways in the infobox WP:RESULT:

1. Do not characterize the war in the infobox, but write "See aftermath."
2. Israeli victory
3. Stalemate
4. Egyptian victory

Andre🚐 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Either option 1. or “inconclusive”, with an elaboration on both viewpoints in the “aftermath section” in either case The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: None of 2,3 or 4 come close to summarising the whole outcome and so it is probably best to leave it out of the infobox and go into detail in the body where the nuance can be more adequately conveyed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the most neutral choice. Perhaps "Disputed, see aftermath." Yue🌙 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 and 3. Why can't we write: "Disputed between Israeli victory and military stalemate"? The purpose of the infobox is to quickly give the reader the information. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per my comments above. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I think a review of how other language Wikipedias handle this question would be useful, in particular, the Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias. I don't speak either language, though, so it'd have to be someone who does... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Curiously and quite unexpectedly, both the Arabic and Hebrew articles exhibit a level of nuance and neutrality that far surpasses the English one. The Arabic article, for instance, characterizes the war as an Israeli victory on the Syrian front while deeming the Egyptian front indecisive, with a short and neutrally worded presentation of the territorial changes in the infobox. Meanwhile, the Hebrew article, according to Google Translate, adopts what has been presented as "option 1" here, sidestepping the infobox and providing a thorough rationale within the text itself which also explains the controversy regarding the final result. One might reasonably assume that bias would be more pronounced in these versions, yet paradoxically, it is the English article that appears to be the most resistant to balanced revisions. Turnopoems (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Of the listed options option 1, but I would say in implementing option 1 it might be useful to delineate between theatres - inconclusive on the Egyptian front perhaps even citing the UN resolutions that resulted or the negotiations that it led to but an Israeli victory on the Syrian front. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Israeli Military Victory. The military objectives of the aggressors were unmet. It is de-rigueur that this is defeat. Yes, the war may have fueled Israeli concessions at Camp David --- which is why the "military" qualifier is helpful. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Not consistent with WP:RESULT? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::The military objectives were not realised. Refer to the late (and often obscured) battles in Egypt which saw Israel failing to achieve any meaningful victories, which is why this discussion is taking place. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@The Great Mule of Eupatoria My thoughts were related to the military aggressors in this war, where repatriation of Sinai, and of Golan were the clear objectives. These were not attained. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::While this may apply to Syria, this was not the case in Egypt, who achieved most of its goals and still retained much of the Suez Canal The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@The Great Mule of Eupatoria Can you point to detail on this. To my understanding Egypt exited the war with exactly the same geographic footprint they had before the war began. What military goal could have been achieved? Johnadams11 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Egypt had seized the Suez Canal and by the end of the war, it had been able to regain control of most of it even when the Israeli counteroffensive is taken into account, including the encircled third army.

::::::The source for the map frontlines (which needs to be redone) is אטלס- מלחמת יום הכיפורים 1983, which shows extensive maps and ground movements. Egypt still has much of the suez with only the exception of the area around the deversoir and great bitter lake, and retains its operation badr acquisitions until the end of the war such as the former Israeli military outposts on the bar lev and the formerly occupied town of qantara. Israel had been unable to reverse Egypt’s gains.

::::::When the Israeli counteroffensive began its goals were not realised (the capture of Ismailia and cutting off the second Egyptian army), and instead after experiencing a major defeat by the Egyptian army at the city Israel had to accept the 22 October ceasefire which should have been theoretically the end of the war

::::::([https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/arab-israeli-war-1973#:~:text=A%20U.S.%2DSoviet%20proposal%20for,he%20flew%20back%20to%20Washington. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/arab-israeli-war-1973#:~:text=A%20U.S.%2DSoviet%20proposal%20for,he%20flew%20back%20to%20Washington.])

::::::The encirclement of the third army is often brought up as an example of how israel defeated Egypt, however this is also misleading for two reasons. Firstly, the encirclement was not a part of an actual offensive during the war, but Israel violating the ceasefire when the Egyptian army had largely stopped fighting. Israel accused Egypt of firing first (it is unclear who did) however Egypt did not move its troops and the Israeli army, whose troops were moved to encircle the third army were the ones who are seen as the violators

::::::Peace Process: American diplomacy and the Arab–Israeli conflict since 1967. Washington, DC

::::::https://www.dawn.com/news/119144/kissinger-gave-israel-tacit-approval-to-flout-1973-truce-documents

::::::The situation of the third army and whether it was on the brink of collapse is still disputed today.

::::::Some suggest that it the USA and Israel overestimated the vulnerability of the Egyptian third army and that it was not on the verge of collapse (Gawrych, George (2000). The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War and Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars.) Additionally, the encircled egyptian army combined with a local militia were able to repulse the Israelis who hoped to quickly take suez city before the second ceasefire came into effect, but this battle was not as significant or decisive as the victory in Ismailia

::::::in summary, Egypt still held most of its positions that were captured in operation badr (including the third army) and when Israel launched the counteroffensive until the 22 October ceasefire it had failed to realise any major goals and only had a heavy defeat endured (the battle of Ismailia). The encirclement of the third army was a ceasefire violation, and when included in the battlefield situation the status of the army’s threat of collapse is still disputed, and even then it had been to inflict one final defeat on the Israeli amry The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 I'm overwhelmingly in favor of option 1 as the least contentious of the four, given that there is a vast corpus of sources with varying degrees of bias in either direction that substantiate both perspectives. If there are sources in favor of option 3 then I would also argue that it is a perfectly acceptable option, but I believe the ones we currently have provide more credibility for option 1. Given that neither side suffered an outright defeat, merely a recalibration of frontlines, the war’s objectives remain open to a degree of interpretation, allowing for the assertion of military victory in either direction should one feel compelled to do so. To arbitrarily privilege one set of sources over another while being fully aware that both exists seems to serve no purpose beyond the imposition of one particular narrative at the expense of another. Instead, a nuanced presentation of both perspectives within the body of the text is the only logical approach. Turnopoems (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Moreover, the disruptive editing currently being done by a particular user, who is removing sourced material in order to implicitly (and unilaterally) arrive at the outcome of option 2 is unhelpful. The claim that Israeli forces’ maneuver to encircle the Third Army on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal constitutes a territorial change is a deliberate misrepresentation since no territory changed hands in this operation. Why should such an operation be highlighted under territorial changes? Likewise, the emphasis placed on the proximity of Israeli positions to Cairo and Damascus strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to fabricate an illusion of triumph, one that bloats the infobox while deliberately sidestepping far more consequential territorial changes. Notably absent are the final developments on the western bank, where Israel suffered decisive defeats in the war’s last days in its failed attempts to capture the canal cities in order to entrench its presence and complete the encirclement. The distance from the easternmost reaches of Cairo to the westernmost point of the canal spans approximately 110 kilometers, so this would have merely been a coincidental outcome of simply crossing the canal rather than a genuine strategic threat to the city. This selective framing betrays an unmistakable bias that seeks to shoehorn an implicit conclusion through artful phrasing. I would love to have consensus to remove that part. Turnopoems (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Turnopoems Agree on all points. The infobox was a complete mess, and sadly, the result of some obvious POV pushing. I made some changes there, which I think are at least a start.Johnadams11 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 2+3 : The armies of Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel and managed to capture parts of its territory. Despite this, Israel succeeded in repelling the Syrian forces deep into Syria and, in the south, crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army. Most of the sources cited in the aftermath section indicate that Israel won. The other sources refer to a military stalemate. However, almost a half of the sources that supports of military stalemate come from journalism rather than scholarly historical research, making them less reliable. Therefore, I believe it should be written as "Israeli victory (see aftermath)", as it was long standing version before the current discussion began. If this is not accepted, it would be possible to write "Israeli victory or military stalemate". However, I still believe this would be inaccurate. This approach maintains objectivity while also directing readers to the relevant discussion on the matter. Rafi Chazon (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Egypt’s late victories in the war are the main reason “Israel victory” is incorrect. It also neglects the fact Egypt still retained most of its territorial acquisitions of operation badr, with the sole exception of the area around the Chinese farm The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::One could make this argument even if Israel had captured Ismailia and Suez. According to Gawrych, P69, Sadat was seeking a ceasefire, as early as 10/21 precisely because of fears of Third Army's collapse. The "night moves" debate as to how this came about is not pertinent to that fact. Johnadams11 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Johnadams11 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Add to that the fact Egypt still had its acquisitions from operation badr and that its war goal (to establish a foothold on the eastern banks of the suez) were realised, even by the end of the war and following setbacks on the battle of the Sinai. Having “Israeli victory” in the results infobox would have to completely neglect that The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@The Great Mule of Eupatoria The question as to what defines a military "victory," is of course a challenging one. It's especially challenging in this case because Egypt's objectives were limited. However, Egypt's offensive of 10/14 -- one of the largest tank battles in history, was an unmitigated defeat for Egypt. It was the key turning point in the overall war, and the event that then allowed the Israeli offensive across the canal, and to Sadat's push for a ceasefire. Johnadams11 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Egypt’s defeats during the battle of the Sinai is also why I didn’t choose option 4, option 1 will allow for the article to elaborate on each party’s goals, such as in this case Egypt’s defeat in the battle of the Sinai but also its late victories which option 2 would omit entirely The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@The Great Mule of Eupatoria "Egypt's late victories" were won in defensive battles, defending their own soil, in a cross-border war of aggression that they had commenced. Puzzling therefore to employ these as evidence of Egypt's overall "victory." In any event, my comments are known, and I shall comment no further. Johnadams11 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The Yom Kippur war cannot be considered a war of aggression as the two Arab states that partook in it (Egypt and Syria) were not seeking to expand but gain lands that were lost in a previous war of aggression. Both fought Israel exclusively on their own land (Sinai and Golan) which was occupied
• :::::::That being said, I am not in favour of option 4 (Egyptian victory), but instead option 1 (a see aftermath, with all the disputes and battles elaborated on in the section) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The military outcome of this war is evidently heavily disputed on Wikipedia, but not among military historians. There was a solid consensus on this, but at these subsequent rounds of discussion have shown, persistence prevails. The "Aftermath" heading, which the infobox now links to, consists of a single line that relies on sheer volume of citations (some of which seem to only mention the outcome in passing) to establish an implied equivalence between the views. This is misleading and dishonest. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:When the “aftermath” section was first made many months ago, I had put a much more detailed analysis (with sources) that got reverted when there was no consensus. I will recall this section by looking through the edit history of the page The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::“The Israeli army was able to establish a break-in point near the Deversoir air base and push into Egypt proper. Whilst Egypt faltered during the middle stage of the war, defeat was averted after the Egyptian army successfully repelled Israeli assaults during the twin victories at Ismailia and Suez preventing the encirclement of the second army and stalling Israel’s counteroffensive during the final stage of the war. Furthermore, Egypt was still able to retain control over much of the eastern bank of the Suez, which it had seized in the early days of the war.

::The failure to defeat Egypt during the Yom Kippur war was acknowledged by Israeli military officials, including chief of staff David Elazar, who said on 3 December 1973: "We could not along ten days of fighting to overcome any of Egyptian armies. The second army resisted and prevented us from ultimately reaching Ismaila city. As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them”

::The Syrian front, with the participation of the Iraqi army eventually ground to a halt and Israel was no longer making gains past the Bashan Salientref>Dunstan, pp.200, but the Israeli military victory was apparent. Not only had the Israeli army been able to reverse all the gains Syria had made during its initial assault on the Golan, but was able to establish a strong foothold in Syria proper, directly threatening its capital Damascus 30 kilometres away.”

::obviously it is very rudimentary and such a passage needs a lot of work and improvement, but it did exist and there was an elaborate version of the aftermath section The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There is obviously a very selective focus here. The fact of the matter is that the Egyptian Army was in a precarious position when the war ended, with the Third Army cut off from supplies. How long it would have taken for it to collapse is a matter of debate, but no army can survive without supplies, and it was not forthcoming.

:::The "controversy" about the outcome of the war is systematically overplayed, then ramped up by selective quotations and dubious conclusions. It is exhausting that a solid consensus us so easily pushed aside by editors who simply reopen this discussion ad nauseam, providing no new facts, and forcing other editors to deal with arguments that are frankly not serious (such as how the encirclement of the Third Army does not "count".) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The third army was not the only aspect o the Yom Kippur war, for example another reason to justify the position of a “see aftermath” section was the rest of the Egyptian front, as well as Egypt retaining most of its operation badr gains. Until recently the late Egyptian victories had been almost entirely omitted from the article despite their importance and still remain obscure The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We should rely on credible sources, not original bullet lists of points or selective emphasis. I fail to see how this reopened discussion has resulted in new information being provided, or otherwise challenging the established consensus. Editors are merely exhausted by repeating these rounds sometimes several times a year. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It’s less about new information and more about taking existing information that had been left out: specifically Egypt’s late victories which until recently had been largely omitted from the article and hadn’t been brought up when discussing result or aftermath

::::::The fate of the third army is largely based on speculation - all narratives and analysis were updated to reflect that. (Section - the encircled third Egyptian army) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't recall the battles of Suez and Ismailia ever being omitted from the article? Also, what's "speculative" about the Third Army being surrounded and cut off from supplies? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

{{U|Chetsford}}, sentence fragments in tables and captions etc do not generally take terminal punctuation per MOS:FULLSTOP. I don't see any significance that the RfC did use a period. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{xt|"Chetsford, sentence fragments in tables and captions etc do not generally take terminal punctuation per MOS:FULLSTOP."}} Yes, I'm aware of that. {{Xt|"I don't see any significance that the RfC did use a period."}} Neither did I, hence the close. Chetsford (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change:

Some higher estimates for Egyptian and Syrian troops.

According to Martin Gilbert, Egypt had 850,000 troops and Syria had 300,000.{{cite book |last1=Gilbert |first1=Martin |title=Israel: A History |year=2008 |publisher=Harper Perenial |isbn=978-0688123635 |page=436 |edition=Revised}} Can someone please update the infobox with this info?

:{{done}} I have now access to this book and could verify that this is correct. Lova Falk (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change:

the statement "The United States and Soviet Union engaged in massive resupply efforts for their allies" is not backed by any reliable resources, all relevant references only point out the US massive resupply effort [49] [50] [51].

This greatly diminishes how effective and how crucial this 1 sided resupply effort was to forcing peace between the two countries, as it greatly improved the odds in favour of Israel.

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=The United States and Soviet Union engaged in massive resupply efforts for their allies|2=The United States engaged in massive resupply efforts for their Israeli ally}} Doo2doo2 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:A larger quote is: "The United States and Soviet Union engaged in massive resupply efforts for their allies (Israel and the Arab states, respectively)".

:The second source (The Impact of American Arms Transfers...) says: "... the US, after all, had not entered the war on Israel's behalf and was simply matching Soviet military assistance to Egypt and Syria..."

:Also the third source (Anatomy of an airlift:...) says: "Yet the exigency of matching the Soviet Union's massive resupply of Egypt and Syria forced the United States to launch an airlift that greatly accelerated the pace and degree of sophistication of military hardware to its client."

:So it is in the sources, and I will not remove the Soviet Union from the sentence. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=ORIGINAL_TEXT|2=CHANGED_TEXT}} 82.129.216.122 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Egypt won the war and restored its land "Saini", Egypt destroy and kill Israelis till it finished, but the USA persuaded Egypt to stop and send annually 1.6 million dollars to stop the war and protect Israel by Camp David Treaty

:Hi 82.129.216.122! Would you please state clearly which sentence(s) you would like to change into what, and what is the source for your requested change? Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Worgisbor (congregate) 17:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Yom Kippur War|answered=yes}}

“Change Yom Kippur war to The Sixth of October War or The Six-hour War” 41.233.212.104 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not done. Hi you! We cannot just change the name of this war into another name without first finding consensus about this. The names that you propose are not even mentioned as alternative names for this war in the article, so it is very unlikely that we would find consensus for this. I won't start a proposal to move for you. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Yom Kippur War|answered=yes}}

Add a headline for the battle for ismailia, I think it was significant enough to have its own headline as part of the israeli crossing battles. Doo2doo2 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (e.g. where should the subheading for the Battle of Ismailia be placed, what content are you suggesting should be included under this subheading; edit requests cannot be used to ask another editor to write a whole new section for you) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Yom Kippur War|answered=yes}}

Split the fronts of this war into multiple articles ? I understand it is a major change but ai think it is an effective way to reduce the article size and be more easily readable Doo2doo2 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: edit requests cannot be used to propose splitting an article. Please follow the procedure for proposing a split instead. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Yom Kippur War|answered=yes}}

Omer9183 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC) You wrote that the results as the aftermath, but it was an Israeli victory, Israel took control of Sinai they crossed the Suez and took the Golan heights even more than that they pushed the Syrians deeper into Syria, you claim that Egypt won by politics and strategics while they didnt, Israel wanted peace, Israel did not want wars. they took Sinai because Egypt planned to attack them in 1967, even in the Israeli Declaration of Independence source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

it is written that Israel wanted peace and Arabs invaded them but they failed, also Egypt's plan was to liberate Palestine which became a failure, the Camp David Accords included that Egypt had to recognize Israel which is also a defeat for Egypt, meaning in the end Israel completely won, and if you dont agree to write Israeli victory, you can at least write "Israeli Military Victory" since the army surely won.

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

“ TEHERAN, Iran, April 24—Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi declared today that Iran supported “the policies of Egypt 100 per cent” in the Arab‐Israeli conflict and other issues, and he predicted that those policies would “prevail at the end.”

The Shah and President An war el‐Sadat of Egypt spoke in English in answer to questions during a 10‐minute news conference at Mehrabad Airport outside Teheran at the end of President Sadat's state visit, which included four hours of private talks between the two leaders.

The Shah, in one of the most trenchant expressions of his pro‐Egyptian stance since Iran's improvement of relations with the Arabs began some months ago, also called for Israelis withdrawal from the Arab territories she occupied in the 1967 war.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/25/archives/shah-backs-egypt-in-israeli-conflict.html AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you mean to add Iran to the infobox under "supported by", the use of "supported by" is deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:If Iran physically contributed a fighting force (like the expeditionary forces shown in the infobox), then yes, but if it only shows weapons support or logistics then it’s excluded The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ohh I see… they did not contribute a fighting force from what I could find. Thank you both for answering! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)