Talk:Kamikaze/Archive 1

I have just added this section, if there are any problems, please post here and wait for my response before just deleting it...remember that it did take some time to write. As of now, the section only has two references, but I would like to do some cross-referencing...its like 12:20 am where I am, so I'm too tired to do that now...help would be appreciated. --KSL 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Japanese occupation of Korea says that many Kamakaze were Koreans, forced into it by the Japanese. Could we have some details on this please?

If you think that an article on Wikipedia lacks information on a certain aspect of the subject, the best way to get that information into the article is to do it yourself instead of asking everyone else to do it for you. If you can locate a credible source (even if in another language, but English sources are better) about Korean Kamikaze pilots, then please enter the information in the article, provide inline citations, and list the source(s) in the references section at the bottom of the article. Cla68 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Roh Yong U perished in a suicide attack against a U.S. B-29 bomber on May 5, 1945. His rank got a double promotion to captain after he died. But, despite his hero status, his remains long stayed in limbo-labelled as "kin unknown" until his war buddies and others pursued his case. Under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to adopt Japanese family and given names, Roh had died as "Kiyoharu Kawada." ^[1]

Continued below at Talk:Kamikaze#Korean_Kamikaze_pilots_.28part_2.29

I think the romaji are bad. Shouldn't it begin "shinpuu..."?

What is "Selbstopfer"? Anyone got an idea? Taku 07:16 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

German Kamikaze see article.Ericd

Why did you delete ?

Don't just put the title of article that doen't exist. Imagine if I put like "Takukaze"? Can you judge if it is a joke or serious something?

Taku 15:59 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

To create a new article you need to link it somewhere before editing the article. So don't be to fast in removing links to non-existent articles.Ericd

No I am asking not put a new title but just put it with some description. Taku 16:28 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Actually Ericd is right. When Nazi Germany was being bombed by the British tword the end of World War 2 in Europe the Nazis needed a weapon. They thought their own Kamikaze attacks would work. On one morning of April 1945 they launched their attack. German me 262 jet fighters got the attention of the P-51 Mustangs and took chase. then over 20 or 30 Me 109 fighters came in and crashed into bombers. Not much is known of this attack. I heard this in a History Channel documantery. Nathaniel13. Leave me a message if you want to know about something about world war 2.

The admiral with overall command on 10/18/44 cannot have been Yamamoto since he was ambushed and killed on 4/18/43.

Perhaps also Taran and Davy Crockett (nuclear device) should be mentioned. Like Selbstopfer it isn't certain death, but very risky. // Liftarn

If the Davy Crockett (nuclear device) is related then we should say why in the Davy Crockett article. How dangerous is it. How dangerous is the Special Atomic Demolition Munition? --Gbleem 16:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article says "The first kamikaze strike came on October 25, 1944, off the Philippine island of Leyte. Twenty-six Mitsubishi Zeros were split into four groups to attack shipping, and five of these were able to hit the US aircraft carrier St. Lo with their load of 250kg of explosives. "

But wasn't the first attack actually on HMAS Australia, four days earlier? Grant65 (Talk) 10:32, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

That 21 Oct date needs checking; I've seen 25 Oct, too, cred to Lt (sr grade) Seki Yukio. Also, "divine wind" bears looking at; it's commonly rendered that way, but I've seen "divine typhoon", which strikes me more apt, given the storm that wrecked Kublai's fleet in 1281... Trekphiler 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The first attack by the official Kamikaze unit was on October 25. Nevertheless every account of the attack on Australia on October 21 describes it as a "kamikaze" or "suicide attack".

In the absence of a Japanese language expert who says that kamikaze should translated as "divine typhoon" I would stick with the conventional translation. Grant65 | Talk 12:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Litteraly, Kami (神) is "God", and Kaze (風) is "Wind" => "Wind of the Gods", or "Divine Wind". Typhoon is an altogether different word: 台風 ("Taifuu", Great Wind).PHG 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

大尉 Yukio Seki was the first OFFICIAL kamikaze-pilot. 19 October was ordered to report to Asaichi Tamai, his officer. There was also present one of the officers (Rikihei Inoguchi) of admiral Takijiro Onishi (who was the leader of 1st flotilla). Tamai had asked Seki to sit down and after this revealed him that admiral Onishi had been planning a suicide attack against american battlegroup near Philippines. There is a mention by another officer, that the meeting was very emotional and That Tamai had cried openly while asking Seki to "volunteer" to lead the attack. Tamai was surprised to find out after asking, that Seki was actually married, not single as they had thought (Seki had married 31 may 1944). On the outside, Seki looked calm and determined, but inside he was bitter and doubtfull. He couldn't understand why a skilled pilot like himself would be wasted in such a foolish way. Right before his flight he told the reporter of Domei, Masashi Onoda, that he wasn't going to do his attack for some abstract reason like saving his fatherland, but for his wife.

This all would actually suit better the article about him, but perhaps some info could be added to this article too? --Ningyou 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The characters 神風 can be read as either しんぷう "shinpū" or かみかぜ "kamikaze". My reading of the article is that the reading "kamikaze" in Japan only applies to the wind in the Mongolian invastion and that "shinpū" only is used to refer to the WWII suicide attacks. If this is the case, why did English adopt the wrong reading? Was "kamikaze" used in Japan at the time but no longer used? Did western translators find only the older term in Japanese dictionaries current at the time? Can anybody provide any help. I'm asking so I can make the Wiktionary article on 神風 as accurate as possible. — Hippietrail 12:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese word for "Kamikaze" isn't even shimpū, but 特別攻撃隊 (Tokubetsukōgekitai) or short 特攻隊 (Tokkōtai). I think Kamikaze should be an article about the real Kamikaze (the typhoons). The german, chinese and japanese wikipedias actually use the japanese words for the articles. The german wikipedia has a disambiguation page de:Kamikaze — Hokanomono 09:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It matters not a whit what the correct term in Japanese is. Kamikaze is the term used in English. —Morven 11:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

The point is, there should be an article about 神風. If "Kamikaze" is an english word, there will be no reason to show the Kanji for kamikaze. I will remove the image. — Hokanomono 12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Limonade" in German means sodapop. "Gung ho" is an abreviation for "industrial worker's cooperative" in Chinese.

No problem with that. If the english word is "Kamikaze" then there should be an article for it. — Hokanomono 12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anybody interested in this topic may be interested in this thread on Languagehat, a language blog. — Hippietrail 13:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The Japanese Wikipedia article on 特別攻撃隊 (tokubetsu kōgeki tai) sais that the air suicide squads from the navy (and only those) were called 神風特別攻撃隊 (kamikaze tokubetsu kōgeki tai). — Hokanomono 16:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"No US aircraft carriers . . . were . . . severely damaged by kamikazes at Okinawa . . ." Not true. The USS Bunker Hill (CV-17), was knocked out of the war and never returned to service as an aircraft carrier. The authority cited for this claim refers only to ships sunk, not those damaged. And by any usage of the term the Bunker Hill was severely damaged, perhaps moreso than any other US carrier not actually sunk other than USS Franklin (CV-13). Anyone disagree? Kablammo 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction made. Kablammo 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, poor quality materials and workmanship may be more directly accountable for the Mongol's fleet defeat rather than weather phenomena 1.

According to recent research, poor materials and shipbuilding may have been the real reason for the Mongol defeat, rather than weather phenomena.1.

I've read NewScientist's report. Judging from that brief conference report, their new theory does not break the accumulation of four hundred-year-old researches on this topic. To review them, I recommend you to read Mōko shūrai kenkyūshi ron 蒙古襲来研究史論 by Kawazoe Shōji 川添昭二 (1977). This book is a little dated but handy for reference.

There are some points to keep in mind before examining details. Whether kamikaze really blew is different from whether kamikaze was the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats. And we have to separate historical facts and historical interpretation of the Mongol invasions.

Did kamikaze really blow? The Mongols invaded Japan in 1274 and 1281. So the question is: did kamikaze really blow twice? Researches have focused on the invasion of 1274. You may don't know but scholars have discussed for nearly 50 years whether a typhoon forced an end to the invasion of 1274. The "kamikaze controversy" was first raised by the meteorologist Arakawa Hidetoshi 荒川秀俊 in 1958. He claimed that kamikaze did not blew in 1274. His claim is based on the fact that credible Japanese sources do not state that Mongols were struck by a disaster. They only state that the Mongols landed in northern Kyushu in the 20th day of the 10th month (November 26) but that Japanese found them gone in the next morning. In addition, it is unlikely that a typhoon hits northern Kyushu in late November. Supporters of the kamikaze of 1274 refer to the Korean source Tongguk Tongam, which states that they were struck by heavy rainfall at night and that fleets crushed into rocks. According to Goryeosa, the Mongol army took one month to return to a Korean port and lost one half of soldiers. So scholars proposed another theory: the Mongols was hit by a disaster not in Hakata Bay but on their way to a Korean port, in other words, somewhere Japanese could not witness the turmoil. This theory conforms to secondary Japanese sources, and I think this is generally supported in Japan. It is a bit surprising that NewScientist's report supports this theory without question.

Next, did kamikaze blew in 1281? Definitely yes. There is no doubt Mongols were struck by a typhoon in 1281. Be careful! Contrary to the sensational lead, NewScientist's report supports the existence of the typhoon.

Then was kamikaze the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats? If we support the theory that Mongol ships were destroyed on their way home in 1274, it is clear that kamikaze was not the reason for Mongols' retreat. According to Yuanshi, the Mongols defeated Japan but since they were not in good condition and arrows were exhausted they decided to retreat. Some scholars claim that Mongols did not seriously intend to conquer Japan in 1274.

What about the invasion of 1281? The Eastern Route Army of the Mongols battled arrived at Hakata Bay in the 6th day of the 6th month. They fought with Japanese soldiers until the 13th day. They gave up landing in Kyushu and retreated to an island. The Jiangnan Army joined The Eastern Route Army in the 7th month. During this time, small naval battles were fought but neither side gained decisive victories. At night in the 30th day of the seventh month when the Mongols were again raid Hakata Bay, they were hit and almost completely destroyed by a strong storm.

Was kamikaze the primary reason of the Mongols' defeats in 1281? I don't think so. Nearly two months had passed since the first arrival at Hakata Bay, but they failed to establish a bridgehead in Kyushu. It's not so surprising that someone was struck by a natural disaster if he/she floats there in that season. For the same reason, poor materials and shipbuilding couldn't be the primary reason even if it is true. It would have had no problem with that typhoon if they had landed in Kyushu.

Lastly, we have to distinguish history of facts and that of thoughts. Some researches suggest that the idea of divine winds was mainly developed by the imperial court and Buddhists rather than samurai who actually fought against Mongols. And the idea itself underwent various changes over time. But it goes beyond my interest. --Nanshu 14:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this is relevant material and could be included, rather than omitting all reference to it.Grant65 (Talk) 02:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

No. This doesn't belong to this article. We need an article on the Mongol invasions of Japan and that would be the right place to put these stuffs. --Nanshu 14:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they also rammed fighters into B-29s, with some success. Any articles on the subject?-LtNOWIS 07:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not "the Wikipedia", but "the English-language Wikipedia". So English terminology should be used.

However, if kamikaze (かみかぜ) is primarily used in Japanese to refer to weather (Mongols, typhoons) that is interesting and should be noted in the etymology section. We might even start an article on the Mongol typhoons, and link to it from kamikaze.

But we also need an article on the Japanese suicide attack planes, the men who piloted them, their tactics, their success rate, how it impacted US Naval shipping, etc.

Like it or not kamikaze has made its way into the English language with a meaning perhaps different from the "true Japanese meaning". That's just the way it goes. The word pollyanna is a distortion of the attitude of the little girl in the story Pollyanna: her optimism was healthy, it healed a family and inspired an entire town; the word is used to mean someone with unrealistic optimism - nearly an antonym of the character's real mood.

I'd like to move the current intro down to the Etymology section, and describe kamikaze as Japanese suicide bombers of World War II. Uncle Ed 13:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. There is a chance that I harbor unconscious bias. My grandfather co-founded the company whose planes shot down innumerable Japanese planes during the war. Perhaps this makes me veer too much to the American military side of things, so please caution me if I make a mistake. Thanks! Uncle Ed 13:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, even though I started the kamikaze (typhoon) page, I disagree with the suggestion because there is widespread awareness and usage of kamikaze, by English language speakers, to refer to the typhoon, even if this is secondary to the main usage. We have to write for all English speakers, not just people in the US, Australia, etc. Grant65 (Talk) 13:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

We might need a kamikaze (disambiguation) page, or a top link to kamikaze (typhoon). By the way, does kamikaze simply mean "typhoon", or is there a particular type of typhoon known as kamikaze? Uncle Ed 16:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kamikaze (神風) means literally "Divene wind" in english. The meaning's of the Kanji are 神 = god, spririt, soul, mind etc. 風 = wind, air, style, manner. In Japan KAmikaze basicly refers to the storm, or series of storms that sunk the mongolian invasion fleet (well, most of it) and other similar storms that happened later. They used Kamikaze to refer to the suicide attacks UNOFFICIALLY, since japanese didn't want to actually refer to them as suicides. Also they saw the pilots and their planes as the divine wind that would sunk the american fleet just like the storm had sunk the mongolian fleet. The japanese word for Typhoon itself is Taifuun. --Ningyou 07:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just without the 'n' on the end. ;o) ShizuokaSensei 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a top link to kamikaze (disambiguation), where kamikaze (typhoon) is already listed. "Divine wind" I believe, refers only to the 1281 typhoon, although it may have been used metaphorically in relation to other, similar events before 1944. Grant65 (Talk) 17:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ought it to be noted that nearly all americans butcher the pronunciation of the word, making it more like kamakazi or kamekazi? The karaoke article has such a mention.

So those pronunciations are incorrect? :-) That makes me wonder if it isn't all English speakers who mispronounce it? You would need to show the correct pronunciation using International Phonetic Alphabet symbols. Grant65 | Talk 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If a word has passed fully into anther language, as with kamikaze, then the point about it's pronunciation in relation to the original native prnunciation becomes moot. It's now an English word of Japanese origin; the pronunciation of which needs not bare any relation to the Japanese and isn't 'wrong' if it doesn't. Why the karaoke article makes this point is a bit baffling to my mind. ShizuokaSensei 09:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The English pronunciations of it aren't incorrect, but they are different. "Kamikaze" came recently into the English language from Japanese, and is still associated with Japan, so I think it's worth noting the differences in IPA. --Galaxiaad 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the English word, not the Japanese word. It is true that it is a Japanese term, but has passed into the English language. Many other words, including proper nouns, have passed into English, are are pronounced by English-speakers in ways which may make speakers of the language from which the term came wince. But once the word had been adopted (as this one has) its pronunciation used by speakers of the new language is not "incorrect". ShizuokaSensei said it very well above; the point is restated now because of a recent edit.[1] Kablammo 12:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The English pronunciation is indeed wrong. Very, very wrong. The Japanese language does not swap vowel tones in and out like English does, so a native speaker reading a Japanese word is going to assume by cognitive bias that pronunciation rules are similar to that of English. 74.242.99.247 11:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone added material about a band to the bottom of the article. I was going to move it to a separate article but a Google search came up with nothing about the band. Which leads me to think that it's a hoax, as they are supposed to have released a CD. Grant65 | Talk 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On a BBC documentary, one Japanese pilot in an interview said that the kamikazes in his unit were drafted, not volunteers. Is there any other information about how many were actually volunteers?

Good question. I will check this. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The pilots were given a questionaire which will ask them whether they would like to join the kamikaze or not. Those who do not join will be isolated by their mates and will be forced to fly everyday under the enemy's fire until they die.

I think it is important to remember that suicide attacks were the norm for the Imperial military, not the exception. Gyokusai ("to die in honor") was a genuine wish among the military (and even civilians). That is why surrounded Japanese soldiers would lead suicide charges rather than surrender. I have spoken with former Japanese soldiers who were slated for suicide attacks (neither were "kamikaze" -- they were to ram boats strapped with mines into a US ship). Both had been "drafted," but both claim that they actually wanted to do the attacks at the time. It wasn't until after the war that they came around. (By the way, perhaps an entry for gyokusai is needed?) Ginstrom 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The existing text questioning whether they were "really" "volunteers" is good, but... it would be good to also have some additional info about the extent to which any of these personnel ever tried to decline the honor, what they did, and what happened then -- all in terms of the reality at the time, not our reality now looking back -- to the extent that such info exists. 69.87.203.26 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

May I call your attention to a recent book, highly relevant, which does not seem to be cited anywhere in this article: Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, Italic textKamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student SoldiersItalic text, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2006. (Widely and favourably reviewed.) The book contains excerpts of letters and diaries of the elite university students, about 2000 in number, who were forced to volunteer. They were not "suicide bombers" in the usual sense, in that they had no choice in their fate. There was a larger number of "boy pilots", even younger, who left little written record of their thoughts.

I claim no expertise on this topic, so I am reluctant to add to the article itself. Andrew.

Why there is no mention of the 9/11 kamikaze? Also, there was a kamikaze attack against US Navy invasion ships in Lebanon in 1982 using explosives-laden general aviation airplanes. The attack on USS Cole was also kamikaze. A warship is always a legitimate target. 195.70.32.136 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In English, at least, the word kamikaze is usually used only for the attacks by Japanese military pilots during 1944-45, although as the introduction notes, it is sometimes used as a synecdoche for suicide attacks in general. However, it is rare to hear the word used in relation to suicide attacks in general. Grant65 | Talk 11:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please let's keep all the Post-WWII suicide-attack general material out of this article, and just link to it at the top, like it is now. 69.87.203.26 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a little work. It gives too much emphasis to the Battle of Midway as a cause of IJN pilot losses. While that battle undoubedly was the turning point in the war, it was but one element in the battle of attrition which eventually made IJN aircrew losses unsustainable. Of equal or greater importance were the airwar over the Southwest Pacific which eventually broke the strength of the IJN forces then land-based at Rabaul, and especially the Marianas Turkey Shoot which virtually eradicated the IJN's remaining carrier aircrews. Which brings us the the next point: the plane most responsible for the Marianas victories was the F6F Hellcat. Two contributors have changed Hellcat references to the P-51 Mustang. While the Mustang was a very effective airplane, it was not deployed to the Pacific in any numbers until late in 1944, after the IJN pilots had been defeated by Navy and Marine pilots in F4U Corsairs and Hellcats (not to mention Kiwis in P-40s, USAAF Fifth Air Force pilots in P-38s, etc). Therefore I have changed it back; if there is some authority for the proposition that the Mustang was a substantial factor in the air war which led the Japanese to turn to kamikazes, lets discuss it here. Kablammo 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The other matters discussed in the first section of the above post have now been made. Kablammo 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to be able to decide what it is about. If we had an article on "Bug"- we could start off as this article begins, by similarly stating "In the english language, bug ican mean any "creepy-crawly", insect, or other arthropod". We could then proceed from such a foggy sense of the term to mix a discussion of all these other creepy crawly impressionistic statements which an examination of true "bugs"- members of the order Hemiptera. And we'd wind up with a mess.

My question is- how do you folks want it? If this article is about the general impressionistic definition of what "Kamikaze" has come to mean, then I will leave this article politely alone and redirect people interested in real facts concerning real kamikaze units elsewhere- perhaps to Japanese Special Attack Units article so that precise statements can be made.

It's not possible to have it both ways. There is considerable confusion due to US sailor accounts of what was genuinely percieved as a "suicidal" attack versus attacks from actual Kamikaze units. Some folks have clearly tried to straighten this out, but others want to muddy it up by propagating the claim that their ship and not others fought off the most fearsome kamikazes or lay claim to the title of fighting off the very first kamikazes. Even worse- those who assert that the distinction between actual kamikaze units and regular units are meaningless- supporting this with the stereotype that japanese soldiers were suicidal fanatics anyway. Please. Let's move out of this foggy thinking.

Let's instead start out the article stating that Kamikaze has been used generally to mean many kinds of different suicidal attacks attempted by Japanese forces, but this article will confine itself to facts concerning actual Kamikaze units.

Consider the statement regarding the toll of the first Kamikaze attacks- it is wildly innaccurate, and seems to be borrowed from http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html. It states:

23-26 Oct44. Off Leyte, 55 Kamikaze pilots, in the first planned mass suicide attacks of the war, coordinated with the IJN attack on Leyte Gulf, hit the escort carriers and sank the St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaged the large escorts Sangamon (CVE-26), Suwannee (CVE-27), Santee (CVE-29), and small escorts White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. In all, 7 carriers were hit and 40 other types damaged; five ships were sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderate damage.

The article has modified this statement to be "the period ending October 26th" in order to jibe with correct note that the first Kamikaze unit did not attack until October 25th. Ok, so subtracting two days from this fantasy statement is going to make the tally more accurate? How do we know what carnage the ww2pacific author was adding in on the 23rd and 24th? How many planes should be subtracted? Who knows.

Ok- so if the general statement of this passage is bogus, perhaps something can be salvaged amoungst the details? So we know the first official attack was by Seki's unit on Taffy 3 resulting in the St. Lo's destruction. We know this is true.. But this attack according to St. Lo's action report took place at 1050. Well guess what. The attack on Santee and Sangamon of Taffy one happenned earlier at 0740, and according to their action reports, came from planes from Davao, not Luzon where the Kamikaze squadrons were based. From the 25th through the end of the battle hey didn't get an damage from aircraft other than this non kamikaze attack. So ok. At least two carriers shouldn't be on this list. (Support info here) and here

Even if these other details were not incorrect, the claim of 55 kamikaze is particularly odd. As of the first attack, there was a total of 24 Tokkotai pilots. Period There weren't 55 available to die during this period.

So that entire passage is utter junk information. Does it end with this passage? Sadly, no.

"Captain Masafumi Arima is also sometimes credited with inventing the kamikaze tactic on October 15, 1944". No amount of weazel words will protect anyone from the fact they are repeating an old wives tail that the policy came up suddenly or spontaneously in October 1944.

• What was that little bit about the Emperor on February 1944 authorizing the Army and Navy to develop and use suicide weapons?
• Or how about that in July 1943 that a naval officer was specifically recommending to Ohnishi that suicide plane attacks be used against ships?
• Or that long before Arima's mission that Japanese radio and newspapers were urging young men to volunteer for suicide attacks on ships and planes?

(According to Chapters 3 and 4 of the warner and warner book I listed as a reference in the article.)

So what shall it be- let "Kamikaze" continue to be an article about indefinate creepy crawlies, or shall we be precise about what the article is about?

-Mak Thorpe 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the vagueness is that there is more than one accepted definition of kamikaze in the English language. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to decide on definitions; the point is to cover and evaluate everything that a particular word or term can or does mean in popular usage and — if necessary — refer the reader to other articles for more precise information. There is nothing unique about this article in this respect: Football (for example) is a similiar case. Grant65 | Talk 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed why I compared this with the article on bugs and not football. Compare the variant senses of football to the following cases:

• • Case 1: There is a gunner staring at a dive bomber coming down at him and he very understandibly believes he was under attacked by a Kamikaze. Pilot pulls out of his bomb run and the gunner realizes it wasn't a Kamikaze but hey- it makes a good war story the other way.
  • Case 2: The gunner kills the pilot and the plane piles into the ship or crashes into the water nearby. Everyone on the ship is dead sure the plane was a Kamikaze.
  • Case 3: the pilot's plane is so shot up his bomb will not release and he is so injured he believes he will blead to death on the flight back to base even if he could pull out. So he does the heroic thing and makes sure his bomb blows up the carrier.
  • Case 4: an event planned informally by the flyers as a suicide attack but not conducted by a Kamikaze unit.
  • Case 5: An attack that appears identical to Case 2, 3 and 4, but was actually conducted by a Kamikaze unit.
  • Case 6: A pilot splashes a plane not knowing it was on a Kamikaze mission.

With football, we can identify which is which because we have precise definitions of what gridiron, rugby union, league etc. mean. On what basis can we say something is or is not a Kamikaze attack? How do we make any definitive statements if in order to use this vague definition we have to get inside the head of the pilot at the moment of the attack? Is it a Kamikaze attack just because someone felt is was probably a Kamikaze attack? How can we even talk about distinguishing case 2 from case 3? How can we prove that either were Kamikaze in the vague sense of the term used in the article?

I asked the question because I have no basis to clean up the nonsense in the ww2pacific quote. How do I know what meaning was intended when the original author came up with 55 "Kamikaze" pilots? And what is the standard for the Kamikaze designation- how many sailors on the ship have to agree they were under a Kamikaze attack? Is it a Kamikaze attack only if it is against ships? How about against planes too? How about attacks using something other than a plane? Is it proper to call manned torpedos or boats Kamikaze? I think we should include all Tokkotai weapons, but if we are to employ the open spirit of the open definition of this article, where are the limits? What about field improvised weapons? If a group of japanese soldiers packed a staff car full of explosives and drove it under white flag and exploded it in the midst of marines, would that be Kamikaze? How about if the soldier did the same with a satchel of explosives on a suicide charge that couldn't possibly result with the japanese attacker living. Should we be talking about Banzai attacks as Kamikaze infantry tactic? If so, maybe Foch and Haig pioneered the Kamikaze concept in the first world war, only they did it with 60,000 lives at a time, not just a few dozen at a time like the Japanese did.

Let's talk about the reality of the situation. The general sense used in the article must assess what was in the mind of the attacker. One guy's opinion is as good as anyone else's on that one.

Concerning cases involving actual Kamikaze units, we have some documentation on which to base factual statements about what the intentions of the attacker were.

Much of the he rest of it is about "Bugs"- some people call snails and slugs "Bugs". And they are entitled to. We just don't have encyclopedic articles on such muddled concepts. If the reader wants to talk about insects, we send them there, if true bugs, we send them there. We get them to think clearly and disambiguate what it is they are trying to talk about.

I don't have any problem about having an article attempting to separate cases of 1, 2, 3 and 4 from exagerated stories that veterans tell. It does the fallen more honor to stick to the facts of what it was really like, not the version told in the bar or on the hollywood screen, or the fictions fabricated on the History channel.[2] And I am not saying that grey areas disqualify subjecs- There are useful things to be said about the Arima, HMAS Australia, and the Indiana and Reno attacks.

-Mak Thorpe 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the word Kamikaze is so un-Japanese, I'd suggest we let this article be a hodge-podge of external impressions, and use some Special Attack Unit article for the real info from the Japanese point of view. 69.87.203.26

I'm ok with using the Japanese Special Attack Units article to present the subject of actual Tokkotai units (assuming that is what you mean by Japanese POV). There may be some unnavoidable overlap though. I think that in the opening para, the users be should be informed of the distinction between the articles- that the special attack units article is about actual Kamikaze units and that this article- is about something else (you fill in the blank here). Lastly, I think that that erroneous statements about actual Kamikaze units such as those I listed be modified in some way. I don't really care how its done. As I said, so long as it doesn't make blatantly false statements, I will leave this article politely alone. -Mak Thorpe 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed this passage from the introduction:

"By 1945 it was apparent that Japan was losing the War in the Pacific, so suicide missions were Japan's last attempt to balance the ever increasing technological and material advantage of the U.S. forces advancing to the Japanese Homeland. The Japanese Tokubetsu Kougekitai strategy ("Special Attack Force") was a direct response to the fact, that the Imperial Japanese Navy had lost almost all of it's aircraft carriers, while the U.S. Forces had numerous carriers and thousands of aircraft. From October 25, 1944, to January 25, 1945, Japanese Kamikaze pilots sunk two U.S. escort carriers and three U.S. destroyers."

It's all covered below and it gives the impression that: only the IJN had kamizazes, that only one Japanese unit was involved, and that only the U.S. was involved on the Allied side. Grant65 | Talk 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was an improvement. Other thoughts: There is a lot of discussion of Japanese terminology but more than is needed. The section on the first Kamikaze unit does not really fit in as it doesn't really go anywhere-- where are the transitions? The article could also benefit from a discussion of the effects-- not the material effects, but whether the kamikaze phenomenon affected Allied decisions in the Pacific war, such as willingness to use atomic bombs. I'll leave that to others but will try to clean up the background section, as mentioned above. Kablammo 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of this:

"In theory, Japanese kamikaze pilots were to commit seppuku in the last few seconds before crashing their planes into American ships. I kind of have my doubts about how often it was actually done - even when the knife is worn hanging in a sheathe around your neck, I'd imagine it would be kind of tough to pull it out and disembowel yourself while trying to accurately target a ship that's blasting all of it's anti-aircraft weaponry at you. (...) The procedure was to pull the knife out from it's neck sheath and thrust it straight into the throat much like the womans form of seppuku."

http://therionarms.com/sold/com195.html

--Felix c 18:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. The Kamikaze Pilot's Manual said to keep your eyes open while on the final dive in order to not miss your target and to yell "Hissatsu." Also, in order to keep on target, the pilot would have to push forward in order for the plane to not pull up due to the lift of the wings (much more lift would occur because of the speed of the plane). Therefore, the idea of commiting seppuku in the last few seconds makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. --68.239.138.139 00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article. I run into it trying to know if an assertion I found in a magazine ("14% of kamikaze pilots survived their suicide attacks") was true or not. Does anyone know something about it? Perhaps the survivors didn't attack at all, but were escort pilots of the same units?

--Ignacio González 08:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered this article. It seems to be a big mess of information relating to people involved in Kamikaze attacks. Could somebody more familiar with the topic take a look at it, merge any relevant/useful information into this article, and then delete it? Bobo12345 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea.Grant65 | Talk 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The following line seems to be an instance of grafitti: "According to legend, all kamikazees were faggots. " If this line is meant to be accurate, in that kamikaze pilots were said to be homosexual, then the line should be edited to "...all kamikazees were homesexuals." Faggot is offensive and confusing (different uses in British v. American English).amagidow

It was idiotic vandalism that should be reverted immediately... Don't be too confused with it... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(eat sushi) (特別攻撃隊), which literally means "special sushi unitwho the heck wrote this crap? I didn't know that 特別攻撃隊 can be translated as sushi?I am deleting this idiodic piece of junk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.251.163 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear Kablammo,

Re - the entry you cut.

I thought that it would be interesting to mention the "The Kamikaze Mind" by Richard James Allen (Brandl & Schlesinger, 2006) because it relates to ways in which the idea of Kamikaze has been read in the West. In fact, as I mentioned, Mr. Allen has a rather unique and creative perspective on the subject having lived in Japan for 6 and half years as a child. While his book is not a historical reading of the Kamikaze concept, it has been creatively inspired by it and reflects on it, in particular in terms of the ideas of 'divine wind' and 'suicidal self-destruction'. Surely one of the most exciting things about history of ideas and symbols is their reimagining and revitalisation in different periods and contexts?

Ref. www.thekamikazemind.com

Best, Physical TV —The preceding comment added by User:PhysicalTV (talk • contribs) at 5:15, 10 March (UTC) at the top of the page, was moved to this spot by Kablammo (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The entry added by PhysicalTV, my reversion of it, and edit summaries are found at [3]. According to a description and reviews of the book at [4], linked at Richard James Allen, it is an imaginative work of poetry by a well-regarded creative artist. It seemed however to be too far removed from the subject matter of this article, even if inspired by that subject. I neither question the seriousness of the work nor the thoughts expressed above by PhysicalTV, only the book's relevance to this article. Therefore I removed the contribution and invited this discussion. The issues are:

• (a) whether this article can address the cultural effects of the kamikaze phenomenon (I think it can);
• (b) whether Mr. Allen's work is too far afield from that (from the website's description of its subject matter, I think it may be, but I have not read the book), and
• (c) whether such an entry might open the door to links to works which, even though artistic in nature, still are commercial to the extent they may encourage purchases of a work of art (which begs the question of where the line can be drawn).

Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. Thank you. Kablammo 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article makes the statement that the Big Blue Blanket was used to cover the US fleet with round the clock air cover to prevent enemy air attacks. I was understood that the tactic was used to smother enemy airfields to prevent enemy aircraft from being able to take off without being immediately shot down.

If you follow the provided link, the article referenced states this.

Which is it?

Best Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.3.11.2 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Big blue blanket says it was both longer-range CAP, and smothering of enemy airfields.

—wwoods 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See part 1 above: Talk:Kamikaze#Korean_kamikaze_pilots.3F_.28Part_1.29

There have been a number of unexplained removals of sourced text indicating that at least one conscripted Korean was a kamikaze pilot. These removals come from a number of different IPs in Japan, and none are accompanied by discussion or an edit summary.

Some time ago the following text was added:

An unknown number of these pilots were Koreans with Japanese names, adopted under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to take Japanese personal names.

Cited was: [5]

The sentence was removed a number of times. I redrafted the sentence to read as follows:

At least one of these pilots was a conscripted Korean with a Japanese name, adopted under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to take Japanese personal names.

This too has been removed. In each case the original cite is allowed to remain, and then appears to be the source for the previous sentence, which it is not. A number of editors have been reverting the removals. The point is adequately sourced. Although not the most important fact, it is germane, and should not be removed again without discussion. Kablammo 15:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I would interesting to note how effective kamikaze bombings were from a military perspective. For example, let say if 100 total pilots attacked, and 10% hit, and each killed 500 people (obviously my numbers are greatly skewed), then the kamikaze's would have been a successful military tactic (provided the cost of their aircraft did not outweigh this loss of life). At least some sentence, if not a section, should be included in the article about its effectiveness, because that is one of the main questions that comes to my mind.

See Kamikaze#Effects. Grant65 | Talk 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• In theory, I would actually think that having your untrained pilots throw away their lives to take out a major enemy warship to be a very efficient use of wartime resources. But I guess in practice that turned out not to be the case? That one History Channel thing showed a single unescorted destroyer taking some 3-4 kamikaze hits and still making it out alive, so the larger fleet groups with fighter sweeps and overlapping AA batteries could probably withstand large wave attacks and still come out relatively intact. I dunno, I would like to see something on how well the actual military effectiveness measured up to the psychological impact Masterblooregard 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Kamikaze attacks came close, but not quite, on having a significant impact on U.S. naval operations in the Pacific. As losses from kamikaze began to mount, Allied forces responded by reorganizing their combat air patrol structure, placing pickett ships to provide early warning of inbound kamikaze, and attacking the airfields in Taiwan, Kyushu, and other areas where kamikaze aircraft and their pilots were based. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of kamikaze tactics. If the Allies hadn't taken these countermeasures, the kamikaze could have significantly slowed Allied operations in the Philippines and the Japanese territories. Cla68 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite clear which parts are quoted from Irokawa Daikichi. Could the person who added the quote, or someone else who has access to the source, please rectify this? Thank you. LordAmeth 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please include the information that the headband is called a hachimaki into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.169.14 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that this photograph was doctored. It looks, when viewed at full size, to be a composite picture. The edges around the girls arms are too crisp and too sharp and, likewise, the officer to the left who salutes the pilot appears to have been cropped in.What do the rest of you think?Regards,James R. MirelesHouston, Texas

It does look weird. We might should submit this photo to the image peer review forum (I'll have to find the link) to see what they say. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If it has been forged during the war, still the interesting material. Just need to know. Audriusa (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a thin border of black most observeable in the second girl from the right in the picture. As if it was overlayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.197.25 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It may just be retouched by censors - see almost any 'official' Soviet aircraft photographs from the period for comparison. Though I can't figure out why it would be necessary to censor what was by this point in the war an obsolete aircraft, unless the retouching is purely for aesthetic reasons?

I've reverted 189.140.181.60's addition of the following text to the beginning of the "Definition and etymology" section, since it wasn't very well integrated with the rest of the text and in any case wasn't referenced nor in a neutral tone:

honorable man who fought until the end, wishing to do one final effort and die rather than live as a dishonorable man

That said, I figured that, since it was probably added in good faith, I should move it here to this talk page — rather than just removing it entirely — just in case someone else might find it worth properly integrating into the article, with appropriate attribution for the viewpoint expressed therein. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement "The Japanese themselves did not use the word Kamikaze to refer to these World War II attacks" is too sweeping and needs to be sourced (and probably modified). This page says "Although Shinpu was the official name given to the first unit formed in the Philippines in October 1944, people in Japan both during and after the war frequently read the two kanji as 'kamikaze.' The pronunciation 'kamikaze' was used frequently to refer to the 'divine wind' that destroyed the Kublai Khan's Mongol fleets invading Japan in 1281, so this pronunciation was the most familiar one to Japanese people." Languagehat (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate changes based on the Japanese version of the article and on the discussion in this Languagehat thread. Languagehat (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "citation needed" tag. It is basic japanese language knowledge that "kamikaze" is the basic pronunciation which would be easily known to laymen, while "shinpu" is the more sophisticated pronunciation. No citation is needed for this statement and this statement is irrefutable. (i.e. To say otherwise would be a factual error.) Languagehat (link above) has some interesting discussion if you're interested. --Mizst (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant in this instance to jump in and be bold to make the changes I'm proposing hereafter because there appears to be some sort of consensus about Kamikaze vs. Shinpū. But reading through the Languagehat discussion (from the above section) and the talk here, I think there are a few problems. I understand that we are fundamentally an english encyclopedia and that kamikaze is the acknowledged term in english. However, it is undeniable that the official name of the first kamikaze unit was the "shinpū tokubetsu kōgeki tai". The reading as shinpū was an intentional decision by Admiral Ōnishi, who created the unit. The way in which this is explained in the article is rather confusing and buried, really, in the definition and etymology section. I can source the official name and the specific reasons for the reading independently. That aside, I think the official name deserves a more prominent position, perhaps even in the lead. However, I'll give it a few days in case someone wants to contribute something. Sean_ODuibher (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the etymology section is rather convoluted. However, I believe the section is fundamentally correct in spirit because normally the unit would be referred to as simply "special attack unit". The misread term kamikaze is more widespread and even got reimported into Japan. In this sense the "official" name is nothing more than just something in some historical document, which is rightly mentioned only in passing in the article. --Mizst (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the entire section, it was all a bizarre reference to Worm Armageddon and was very amateurish. If anyone wants to put in a well written and referenced Popular Culture section they can go ahead. 86.40.182.161 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The kamikaze were a big subject at the end of Linda Sue Park's "When my name was Keoko". Does anyone know of anymore references to them in books or something? Brianna 13:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricsontos (talk • contribs)

Would it be good to mention Kamikaze is used a weapon/ability in Worms, As a Comedic prop, They even wear a (Forgot the name of the Headband) And scream 'KAMIKAZE' While plundgeing into whatever's in its way and exploding.

I suppose it could show it is used for other things, E.G. Comedy. NekoKiyo (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia has enough bias towards popular culture as it is 86.43.166.254 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm greatly disappointed that after reading this well-documented article on what is a serious series of event in world history, I come to the talk page and somebody seems more interested in some reference to some video game. I guess I'm just a stick in the mud. --C S (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is woefully misleading and feeds into common stereotypes of zealous Japanese samurai eager to die for a cause. If you read the interviews of kamikaze survivors, the picture painted is drastically different. "Volunteering" was far from a free choice. In many cases, "volunteers" were coerced to join. Societally, they were forced to feel that they were bringing great shame upon their families if they did not "volunteer". Those who refused to "volunteer" were beat up. The ones that survived because their missions were aborted or the war ended before they could suicide, say they felt a great shame that still lingers even today.

The section needs to be entirely rewritten. Currently it gives the impression that those in charge were pleasantly surprised, "oh, wow, we have so many volunteers", when the reality is more like they knew very well how to manipulate the young men in their care to do their bidding. --C S (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, it depended on the situation. Some flight student classes were given a chance to volunteer, and between 30% and 60% did so, depending on the class, without fear of recrimination. In other cases, however, it's clear that pilots were pressured into volunteering as you mention above. In fact, I read somewhere that one pilot who was forced to volunteer strafed the airfield tower and flight operations building after taking off, where presumably his superiors were watching the takeoffs of the kamikaze aircraft, before flying off to complete his mission. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to give too much importance on the the historical text of the Seconded World War,granted that it is important but, academically incorrect some more importance needs to be given on its Origin and its its influence on Sociological and Political areas. I mean the whole page just goes on and on about tokubetsu kōgeki tai and not Kamikaze. --XChile (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My great great grandfather was a kamikaze...and before he went out to fulfill his duty, he wrote a letter to my great great grandmother...

My father still remembers that letter very well, because my grandmother was given the letter from my great great grandmother before she died...the letter goes like this:

"Just like any human being, I have only but one life to give, and my time is very short...I go off to my mission 2 days from today. I cannot tell you how nervous I am, but I also cannot tell you how excited I am to sacrifice my life for the Emperor. We recently had a child, but I was not able to be there for him as much. Give that child all your love, and remember to tell him that his father loved him very much, but had a important business to take care of. I love you. And may the Emperor riegn for eternity."

Yep...thats what the letter said...RIP grandpa, I'm sharing this, because I think its quite interesting.

• The B29 Superfortress which delivered the atomic bombs were strategic aircraft, designed for deep penetration behind enemy lines to strike industrial targets. The lone kamikaze which struck a lone allied warship were tactical aircraft used for that particular battle, Okinawa in this case. If a writer wishes to avoid making himself look foolish, then he should "brush-up" on his military history and terminology, know what he's talking about before making comments, other wise he is simply advertising his ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.64.56 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for sharing. Do you know in which unit he served and where he was stationed? Path-x21 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the German part of the Quotation is not perfectly correct. Instead of "Zwei Seelen wohnen auch in mein[em] Herz!!" it should be "Zwei Seelen wohnen ach! in meiner Brust" which is from Goethes probably most famous Drama "Faust".213.168.124.162 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article emphasize more clearly that kamikazes were a likely inspiration for many mass homicide/suicide/terrorist missions since? And probably all of the ones involving planes, particularly the likely attribution to the September 11, 2001 attacks.Hoops gza (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if people can provide reliable, published sources that clearly show such a link. -- saberwyn 21:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"In English, the word kamikaze may also be used in a hyperbolic or metaphorical fashion to refer to non-fatal actions which result in significant loss for the attacker, such as injury or the end of a career."

The above statements says kamikaze refers to non fatal actions. I am confused as i think it should say "fatal actions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkyzealous1 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The last two quotations are from the same person, but the first and last part of the name are swapped between the two. I know nothing about the structure of Japanese names, but shouldn't one variation be chosen and used on both? Ladenzor (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The pronunciation in the audio sounds odd to me. It almost sounds like there's a pitch accent on the first syllable, though in reality this word clearly has pitch accent on the second syllable: kamiꜜkaze, at least in my Kanto (eastern, Tokyo area) Japanese. Does anyone know about the source of the audio? Otherwise, I may record a new one. mitcho (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In G-8 and His Battle Aces #2 (November 1933) "Purple Aces" (set in WWI) there is a German death cult where pilots deliberately fly without any fear of death and where they deliberately sacrifice themselves and their Fokker planes to destroy important Allied targets.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC))

My opinion is that this is not sufficiently relevant to be mentioned in the article. It's not culturally of great significance and it almost certainly did not influence the Japanese kamikaze tactics in an yway. --Yaush (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just added some info, fixed a broken link.etc Last time I read the article was in 2010 and it was a stub. In the past years the article have improved greatly in content, sources, photos and militaria details. Good Job! Congratulations to all editors.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that the Kamikaze pilots were usually given crystal meth (invented by the Japanese) just before they boarded their flights (or perhaps also took it while in-flight) to lengthen their flight time/make them more alert, but there is no mention of the use of crystal meth/drugs in this article, and I am not an expert on Kamikaze pilots. Perhaps somebody who knows this subject can insert this interesting aspect of Kamikaza pilots. Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some explanation of whether the general tactical procedures of kamikaze attacks ( e.g. formations, methods of approach, number of aircraft employed etc.) were the same as those employed in conventional attacks. From the current article, it appears that kamikaze attacks deliberately targeted picket destroyers. Was this target priority ever used in conventional air attacks? Were there reasons why aircraft making kamikaze attacks were more difficult to detect and intercept at long ranges than those making conventional attacks? Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kamikaze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928035807/http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=49 to http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=49
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028154222/http://nmsua.edu/tiopete/files/2008/12/wspgcoldbook.pdf to http://nmsua.edu/tiopete/files/2008/12/wspgcoldbook.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for "The Last Letter" by a kamikaze pilot whose name starts with an R, and has some odd letters. Benjamin (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Found it!

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Ry%C5%8Dji_Uehara

A link to this should be added. Benjamin (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is somewhat garbled. For example, it seems to say in the first paragraph that a kamikaze attack was conducted during the attack on Pearl Harbor (on 7 December 1941), but in the third paragraph states, "These attacks, which began in October 1944,". You need to distinguish between a single aviator who, with his own death imminent, decided independently to make the most of his death by making a ramming attack at Pearl Harbor, versus the programs that were created for, and the operations that were designed as, ramming attacks. I think you have gotten confused by the several usages of the word kamikaze. Kabocha (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and prior version restored. Pearl Harbor was not a kamikaze attack. Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, Kablammo.

This article is still badly garbled, and that is partly because Western historians/writers have not understood that "Kamikaze" (the special attack pilot/unit/tactic/program, take your pick as to what the word signifies) is basically limited to certain Japanese Navy air operations using the "special attack" tactic. It should not be applied to, and as far as knowledgeable Japanese are concerned, does not apply to Japanese Army special attack air operations.

As a general proposition, the Japanese prefer the more inclusive term "tokubetsu kōgeki" and its abbreviation, "tokkō" to the more limited term "Kamikaze". A book called Kamikaze Tokubetsu Kōgekitai, Model Art Number 458, Model Art Co., Ltd., (1995) deals exclusively with certain aerial attack missions by the Japanese Navy. It contains nothing about Japanese Army air special attacks. That publisher dealt with Japanese Army air special attacks separately.

Consequently, from the Japanese point of view, your illustration of a Japanese Army Ki-43 taking off at Chiran Air Base, which was mainly a Japanese Army installation, is incorrectly shown here. The Japanese Army air special attacks are not "kamikaze", but they do qualify as special attacks (tokubetsu kōgeki).

Which do you want to discuss in this article, a limited group of navy special attacks by air, or the broader topic of Japanese air-to-surface special attack?

I will check this site again in a week. Kabocha (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In the Quotations section Ichizo Hayashi refers to how he "cannot help crying when [he thinks] of you, Mum". This is the British form, of course, but there is no guideline as to whether the article is in British or American English. Please correct me, of course, if this is simply how it translates. Wodgester (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see instances of both "armor" and "armour". The first instance I find of "defence" was in 2005; there then was no use of "defense". So it looks like British (Aussie?) English was used first, but current usage is inconsistent. Kablammo (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)