To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Is there a particular reason that nonpropagating EM modes and other non-radiative EM fields could not be used as part of electronic warfare? I can't find any good references for this, but as someone with a degree in Applied Physics, I'm certain that technically, at least, it is possible. - JustinWick 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"1. Electronic Warfare is an experimental electronic DJ experiment featuring fellow artists Jay Hines and Adam Barr. The group was founded in 2007." - Why is this here? If this guy wants to be on wikipedia then he should submit his own article not modify this combat related article about this nonsense.
The Iranians are reported to have just used a Russian system called Avtobaza, which we don't seem to cover at all. Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Shocking that we might not cover something that was only just reported online today. As a matter of fact, adding this would smack terribly of recentism, to say nothing of the fact that, as your article points out, this is all speculation and there is no confirmation that the Iranians actually managed to do anything. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because you didn't know about doesn't mean it hasn't been around for years. In this case 2007. Hcobb (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
We don't mention each and every electronic warfare suit in this article. The fact that it has been around since 2007 is irrelevant since your reason for adding it is something from 5 December 2011. In otherwords, your claim for notability is recentism for an unconfirmed claim. I will kindly ask you not to speculate as to my prior knowledge as I only commented as to the recent news story claim and its lack of mention in this article, not any prior personal knowledge. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose that EWSP be merged into Electronic warfare. I think that the content in the EWSP article can easily be explained in the context of Electronic warfare, and the Electronic warfarearticle is of a reasonable size that the merging of EWSP will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are the same things repeated over and over again in the article?
The article can be shortened five times if the repeated information is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)