Talk:James Mitose

My Edit
I've made an fairly large edit to correct what seemed to be a dumped copy-paste of other information as well as a few POV issues. Stylistically speaking, Kenpo practitioners should remember that the meat of the article should not be taken up with the positions of one lineage or another, but to provide a good biographical resource. Thus, even though it's important for some people to tell us all the Ed Parker didn't like him, much of the quote was irrelevant to Mitose, per se. I cut it. I have no horse in this race.

Future targets for expansion should be in claimants for the Kosho lineage. Someone should also confirm that Kosho is in the Bugei Ryuhai Daitijen (as it's rumored to be) and add some footnoting for What Is Self Defense and What Is True Self Defense.

-Malcolm Sheppard

The quote is not about whether Ed Parker liked Mitose. It is about whether or not Parker was a student of Mitose. When talking about claims that he was, it is relevant to point out that he says he wasn't. When, in mentioning the veractiy of the claim that many arts trace their lineage through him to Mitose, it is relevant to point out that, according to Parker, such lineages are false.

'''It is also relevant to point out that Parker changed the definition of "lineage" as it applies to American Kenpo. According to Ron Chapel, Parker stated that one's lineage ends with one's instructor. Parker does not trace his lineage through Chow to Mitose, preferring only to acknowledge Chow. Chapel, likewise, states that Professor Chow is not in his lineage because his lineage stops with Parker. So, Parker's claim that Mitose is not in his lineage is irrelevant in an article that talks about kenpo in the west tracing their lineage through Mitose to Chow and onward, simply because we are dealing with different definitions of lineage.'''

Likewise, there are quotes from Chow which very strongly imply that he learned little from Mitose.

'''But there's this book that clearly shows Chow on page after page acting as uke to both Thomas Young and James Mitose, and there are photos in the same book of Chow as a member of Mitose's Official Self Defense Club. And there is the first hand account of the woman who dated Chow while he trained under Mitose stating that, "Willie taught some of the classes, but when Mr. Mitose walked onto the floor, it was obvious who was in charge. Willie feared him and showed him great respect." So, while Chow may claim to have "learned little" from Mitose, Mitose was indeed his teacher.'''


 * Those are some very interesting comments. Why is what Ron Chapel says significant?  And what are his sources?  Do you have a proper citation for these comments or is it hearsay?

It is significant because it shows that Parker's view of "lineage" is irrelevant. Chapel's source is Parker. My source is Chape'l.

If you do, it would make a very interesting addition to the Wikipedia (probably under the Parker and Chow articles while editing the Mitose article to remove the comments here and point to the Parker and Chow articles for the controversy).

I believe it is generally recognized that Chow attended Mitose's Self Defense Club, but the debate is whether he was trained by his father or by Mitose - these pictures (what pictures? where? what book?) really don't address that debate.

The book is "What is Self Defense." Chow's father did not know kung fu. If he did, at least one of Chow's siblings would have learned kung fu from him. The only Chow sibling involved in the martial arts was John Chow-Hoon, who learned from Henry Okazaki, and taught an art he called "Kosho Ryu."

"Claims that Mitose was a student of Choki Motobu have been proven to not be true, but Mitose clearly respected him" was deleted because it isn't sourced.

I will source it now.

"mistakenly" was also deleted because it isn't sourced.

Prison sourcing
''However, in 1974 he was arrested in Los Angeles and convicted on murder and extortion charges stemming from a conflict from repayment over a loan he made. He was sentenced to life in prison and died in Folsom Prison of complications of diabetes on March 26, 1981. He maintained his innocence to his death, and many schools which follow in his training lineage still maintain that he was wrongfully convicted, although the details of this incident remain controversial in the martial arts community.''

Where is this information from? I would like to research it more.


 * It is from a lot of sources, a google search for for the words "James Mitose" and "Prison" turns up hundreds of references to the incident.


 * A few are:

NPOV on Prison story
I was wondering how to best keep it NPOV, and I don't have the file for the trial (Reference: Case #A-306967, Los Angeles County Superior Court (Verdict date: 9/16/74) if you want to get a copy), but his supporters claim among other things that he was denied any attempt to bring in a Japanese-language translator or cultural expert to clarify terms and expressions that had been used and to explain to the jury differences between American and Japanese culture that the cace involved, and the District attorney used the fact he was addressed as "Master" by his students as a show of respect to make him out to be a Charles Manson-esque cult leader. Opponents say Mitose was an evil thug who was a loan shark and extorted money from old men and used his apprentices as goons to beat up people who defaulted on loans, his supporters say that he was loaning out money from a fund he was raising to Japanese-american businessmen under a traditional verbal contract, and some businessmen tried to refuse to repay because the deal was verbal, and became aggressive when he insisted they repay the loan. One such incident turned violent, a businessman named Frank Namimatsu died in it, and Mitose went to prison about it. Discussions of this incident on martial-arts message boards almost always turn into flame wars and shouting matches, because he really is a controversial figure. --Wingsandsword 23:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think without the court transcripts these articles are just the opinions and personal feelings about this man and what happened. There are some factual errors in the above articles you mentioned. Frank Namimatsu did not have a daughter who dated the district attorney. James Mitose's student did not pay a visit to the Namimatus. He broke into their home in the middle of the night while they were sleeping. These articles neglect to mention that Mitose claimed to be a healer in order to gain the trust of Japanese immigrants and have access to their money. Mitose attempted to adopt Mr. Namimatsu(he was unable to because he was younger than Mr. Namimatsu.)to try and control this man and his wealth.

He may have been a martial arts master but he was also a man driven by greed to try and take advantage of people for his own personal material gain.


 * As has been discussed previously, the best way to keep it NPOV is to link to legit (and hopefully primary) sources.

Koga Ryu and William Durbin's Seiko Fujita
(01/06/2006) The following simply needs to be removed:

"Perhaps in Japan he trained with Seiko Fujita ( astudent of Choki Motobu's, among others) in something called Koga Ryu. Perhaps he was never in Japan; or perhaps he was but received no martial arts training there, instead training with Mizuho Mutsu and/or Thomas Miyashiro in either 1932 or during the years 1937-1942. The facts on him are in dispute."

This is "William Durbin's" revisionist history. There is nothing to support this claim of a link to Koga Ryu Ninjutsu, or the possibility of him learning anything at all from Seiko Fujita. This is nothing more than a theory, therefore, should not be includes in such an article.

I completely agree User5802 07:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

==== (01/06/2006) It should also be noted that I made the following change:

"In 1953, James Mitose ceased teaching Kempo regularly, and dropped out of sight. He privately taught a few students in that time, including his last student, Terry Lee. "

Cleanup
I hereby request that someone who knows Wikipedia rules and English grammar clean up this article. As the previous poster commented, it has become a fight on the article page and a sourced document on the talk page (instead of the other way around). It is hard to understand because of its poor grammar, and focuses on colloquialisms to describe controversy in a condescending and defensive way. So whoever you are, if you have any gift for English style and grammar, or for academic sourcing (Wikipedian or otherwise), please make this article legit. The same goes for this discussion page, which can't evoke discussion until it's organized.-Mrcolj 14:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps"
All these "perhaps" are weasel words and should be changed so that such speculations are identified, the reason (that is, -primary data- and analysis) they are speculated should be identified, who makes the speculation should be identified, and where the speculation is made (for example, the name of the academic, peer reviewed journal, date, and page number) should be identified.

Deletion of verified data
A deletion of recent verified data was made. The reason for the deletion was not explained here in the discussion page. If you feel the deletion of that data is appropriate, please describe your rational here. Otherwise, I have to assume it was an act of vandalism.

Chow
"However, Chow tended to downplay the skill of any martial artist other than himself, at one point stating that Ed Parker had only ever received a purple belt from him." has been deleted as it isn't sourced. A cited reference for that statement dated after a cited reference from Chow saying that he promoted Parker beyond purple belt needs to be included before this statement is included in the article.

The reference is linked.

Adriano Emperado et al
"Kajukenbo cofounder Adriano Emperado has stated that Mitose was a Master Instructor, and the men that sought him out later in life echo that sentiment." deleted as it isn't sourced.

Al Tracy comment
The following "There is some doubt about the credibility of Mitose's claims regarding his kenpo training, however, research posted here verifies much of what Mitose claimed." It doesn't provide primary data. It is an editorial which is presumably based on data which a person would have to dig through an entire site to find. It would be better if direct quotes were taken from the site and appropriately cited. Regarding the Al Tracy comment about "no Mitose, no Kempo", having read the page where he states that, its an opinion embedded in the middle of some pretty far fetched claims which aren't well supported. Again, instead of an editorial (whether from Tracy or someone else), let's focus on hard and fast data. I just don't believe that there should be room in an encyclopedia article for an editorial. 24.164.94.116 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

'''This whole article is slanted towards the negative on James Mitose. The opinions above are ALL documented at www.sanjosekenpo.com and require no digging. The documents are well marked and titled.

You will leave up what Ed Parker wrote, but take down what Al Tracy wrote, and you call that NPOV?'''

This is no encyclopedia.

I simply don't understand where you are coming from. The Ed Parker quote speaks directly to whether he was a student of Mitose. Ed states that he was never a student of Mitose (though, on review, I admit that it could probably be cropped to cut out his opinion and focus on the simple fact that he claims that he was never a student of Mitose - in fact, I'm going to do that in a minute). The significant part of Parker's quote is a statement of fact - that he was never a student of Mitose. How can you possibly get any more of a primary source than that? Al Tracy editorializes on Mitose. What he writes is a statement of opinion. Since I wrote the earlier comment, it has occured to me that if the article states "In Al Tracy's opinion, without Mitose, there would be no Kempo in America" and linked to his article, that would be a primary source. Of course, the question then becomes "why should I care about Tracy's opinion?" (for example, is he widely acknowledged as an expert in martial arts history by -mainstream- academia - that is, academics who teach and research in mainstream Universities?) I suggest that that question be answered when you write that statement if you choose to write that statement in the article. Give primary sources which are pro-Mitose and which are significant and I'll be ecstatic.24.164.94.116 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"However, in the same article, he claims the rank of 15th degree and goes on to mention that Ed Parker only ever received a purple belt from him." has been removed from the article because it does not provide evidence that Chow ever lied about Parker only ever having received a purple belt from him. Without that, I have no idea what the relevance of that quote is - I am, however, considering deleting the Chow comment as it is based on this article and this article appears to be hearsay.

What is True Self Defense?
Added some info on people who had contact with Mitose in prison, including his son and grandson who are carrying on the tradition of Kosho-shorei as a family art. I put up hyperlinks hoping someone else who has more info on these men will add articles on them.

The source material is page VII of "What is True Self Defense?" by James Mitose, also called "True and Pure Karate and Kenpo," as well as information from Thomas Mitose's website.

Can you give a proper cite to the material (perhaps APA)? If you need any help, post the information here and I or someone else would be glad to help.

What do you mean by APA? I have a copy of the book, so I will cite it however you wish. The information about the masters came from page VII, the Acknowledgements Page of the book, and on that page, Mitose refers to them by those titles. Thomas Mitose's website can be found at www.kosho-ryu.com.

You have a copy of the book? I've been trying to get my hands on it for awhile. APA is here. Note that I'm not saying that it is required (I didn't use it in my references, though I probably should have), only that it would be nice. Along with it, quoting the text in the book rather than summarizing it for each point that you are using it to support would be nice. It should be done in such a way that a person can read what you said the text says, be directed directly to the text, and be, beyond debate, unable to say "it doesn't say that". Verifying and citing should be the bones of any article on Wikipedia. 198.97.67.59 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some citings. I linked Thomas Mitose's name directly to his own biography, and cited as much info as I have regarding the book. The publishing date does not seem to be in it.

NPOV violation on successors
There are multiple people who claim or have claimed to be successors of Mitose. Yet this article downplays the histories of Bruce Juchnik and others and declares Mitose's son the 22nd successor. We can't just disregard the others, since people like Juchnik have 10x the followers as Thomas or Mark Mitose. Whatever your opinion, controversial issues must be phrased as such. --Mrcolj 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Juchnik has not claimed to be Mitose's successor, only that he was given authority by Mitose to do whatever he felt was right regarding Kosho. The fact that it is a family art makes the succession of Great Grandmastership from James to Thomas to Mark obvious.  Juchnik and others head their own arts, their own interpretations of what Mitose taught them.  The family art continues to be headed by an unbroken family line 23 generations long.
 * Please sign your posts. I understand that Thomas' argument was that as son he inherited the art (and in fact more than that, that he fundamentally knows secrets because he is genetically related, even though he was never raised by Mitose.)  But he never started saying that until years after his father's death.  And the fact remains that Thomas was only "his son" for a few years before his death, which must mean only a few visits; and that upon James' death, Thomas publicly said he had no interest in the arts or in following his father's line publicly and on multiple ocassions.  Juchnik calls himself Hanshi, which means he claims to be the root head of Kosho Ryu.  I'd call it humility and nothing more that makes him call it Kosho Shorei Ryu.  He's just not a fighter.  I dunno, my whole point is that there needs to be mention that Thomas "claims" to be James' successor, and reasonable people may disagree.  --Mrcolj 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to sign. Must be getting it wrong.  I'll just include my name at the end here.  Anyway, your point is well taken.  Thomas does claim successorship, but this is/was a family art.  I consider Juchnik to be the grandmaster and head of his own art, but Great-Grandmaster was a family title, according to James, so it is my opinion that either Thomas is the 22nd Great Grandmaster, or there isn't one.  This is not to say that Juchnik, or for that matter any of the other masters that trained for a while with Mitose don't know "more."  But I do have it on record that James Mitose promoted those masters with the purpose of them collectively teaching Thomas, since he was to be Great Grandmaster.  User:Dave  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.87.82 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

John Chow-Hoon
Probably would be good to mention John Chow-Hoon in this article. He was William Chow's brother and also studied under James Mitose, before being ranked as a 10th Dan in Kosho Ryu Kenpo and Jujitsu. Frank Chow probably also studied under Mitose. Not sure if Mitose promoted John Chow-Hoon to any rank. More than likely William Chow probably ranked him as a Shodan in Kenpo.


 * John Chow-Hoon

User5802 07:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source on James Mitose
James Mitose mentioned in A Chronological History of the Martial Arts and Combative Sports 1940-now Article, Electronic Journals of Martial Arts and Sciences


 * "Masayoshi "James" Mitose, a Japanese-educated Japanese American ("Kibei"), starts teaching a Japanese martial art at Honolulu’s Beretania Mission. Mitose called his style kenpo jujitsu ("fist law jujutsu"), and wrote in his 1953 book, What is Self Defense, that the art was hundreds of years old. Like many of Mitose’s claims, this has not been externally documented, and photos show something that looks suspiciously like karate. Anyway, between 1942 and 1953, Mitose promoted six students to 1-dan. Among these was William K.S. Chow, who actually trained under Mitose’s student Thomas Young. In 1944, Chow started his own class at the Nuuanu YMCA, and in 1949, Chow began calling his methods "kenpo karate." Chow continued teaching kenpo karate (though not always by that name) until his death in 1987, and his better-known students included Adrianao Emperado, Ed Parker, Bill Chun, Ralph Castro, and much later, Sam Kuoha." User5802 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
Deleted the references to Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo and Mr. Vaughn. They were advertisements.209.159.44.242 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)David

Roy Suenaka
Although he is perhaps a well known martial artist, there is no mention of him ever studying with Mitose or studying Mitose's art on his (Suenaka's) bio page. I think that placing him on this page under notable students of Mitose is fraudulent. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.87.82 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling should vary
I don't want to open a can of worms about the proper spelling of "ke(m/n)po", but most people spell it with an N, and Juchnik's line spells it with an M. So the Kosho Shorei section should spell it with an M.  --Mrcolj (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 拳法 is romanized in several ways. "Kempo" is the Hepburn romanization but failing to use a macron to indicate the long vowel. "Kenpō" is the preferred wiki romanization. I would use "kempo" only in an official title or name (such as Kosho Shorei-ryū Kempo) and use "kenpō" as the generic term through the article. jmcw (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraph about William Chow
I deleted a paragraph that has valuable information, but is totally grammatically incoherent. Anyone is welcome to rewrite it and re-insert it, or integrate the information therein in some capacity. But 1) July 25 has no year, 2) there is no source, nor possible source extant, that William Chow didn't know the martial arts, 3) the author says Chow is obviously untrustworthy because he said the last time he saw Ed Parker, Parker had a purple belt, 4) Emperado said via hearsay that Chow taught Mitose and Mitose's a master instructor, therefore we're supposed to accept that Chow's equal to Mitose. Cf. the following: "Jim Perkins, interviewing Chow in an article published in the July 25 issue of Black Belt magazine on page 36, quotes him as saying, "my father('s) my teacher, not Mitose!" However, William Chow's father did not know or practice martial arts.  In the same article, Chow went on to say that Ed Parker was only a purple belt when he left him, so the credibility of Chow's comments are at least questionable.  Adriano Emperado has stated that William Chow taught what James Mitose taught, and that Mitose was a "master instructor." --Mrcolj (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates
Just passing though I noticed that perhaps it may be a little bit difficult for Mitose, who "returned to the United States on February 25, 1937," to have begun "teaching Kempo in Hawaii in 1936." I don't know anything about this man really, so if someone who does would like to clarify that I'm sure it would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes007450 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawaii was an insular area until 1959. jmcw (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on James Mitose. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitoseBirthcertificatesandfamily.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224150547/http://www.itoswhitetiger.com/images/s_IWT1KoshuRyuorgchart.jpg to http://www.itoswhitetiger.com/images/s_IWT1KoshuRyuorgchart.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitosereturnfromjapan.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitose_documents_installment_thr.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/articles.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Mitose. 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 tag to http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitose_military_record.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102033717/http://www.tracyskarate.com/History/Mitose/Mitose.htm to http://www.tracyskarate.com/History/Mitose/Mitose.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)