Talk:Hata clan

Jin ( surname) isn't Chinese. Its Manchurian/ Mongol name.

What happened to the Previous article on the Hata Clan? The previous one was accurate. Somebody completely erased it. Wrote back a false version of this article. The current version is false. How can a Korean Prince be a Chinese or Jewish-related clan? It doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockiiie (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Shandong Province was Baekje Influence political and cultural area. 2) Jin isn't Chinese its Korean/Manchurian surname. 3) Jin was common surname in Korean ( Kim), Manchurian (Jin), Mongolian (Chin). 4) Jin wasn't from Chinese dynasty. That was Manchurian/Korean/Mongolian Dynasty. 5) Political and Geographical distance Korean Peninsula is closer to Japan rather then china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsensepedia (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC+9)

Two simple evidences from wiki:

1)" Kim Alji is born from a golden box that Hogong[japanese] discovered."

2)"He was a member of the Gyeongju Seok clan, one of the noble clans that shared the Silla throne during the early Common Era. He was born in a small kingdom 1000 li1 northeast of Wa (Japan)." 66.91.103.220 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

References

"Collaborating"

Thank you for admitting that you have been collaborating with Jon C.

It would appear, however, that Jon C. has involved you in this editing process in order to circumvent the results that have been achieved on the Talk page of the related topic of British Israelism, in particular with regard to terminology.

In editing that page I invited a number of other contributors to collaborate, actively seeking their input.

He has also attempted to claim that the two topics are not related, which is simply ludicrous.

In consideration of the fact that you have reverted my edits wholesale, instead of editing the only the portion with which you claim to take exception, that you would appear to share some sort of religion informed agenda with Jon C., and I cannot consider your reversions to have been made in good faith.

I'm going to resume editing this page in a piecemeal manner, restoring the terminology that you have reverted, and the adding edits on Saeki and genetics.

Before posting the edit on genetics, I will seek input from other Wikipedia editors that have contributed similar edits to related pages in the past.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

GENETICS

Here is a fairly recent study (2005) that analysis Japanese Y-chromosome haploid types.

Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes. pdf

A quick glance at the Abstract, here shows that: "Japanese populations were characterized by the presence of two major (D and O) and two minor (C and N) clades of Y chromosomes, each with several sub-lineages. Haplogroup D chromosomes were present at 34.7%... haplogroup O lineages (51.8%)... Coalescent analyses of Y chromosome short tandem repeat diversity indicated that haplogroups D and C began their expansions in Japan approximately 20,000 and approximately 12,000 years ago, respectively, while haplogroup O-47z began its expansion only approximately 4,000 years ago."

I should hope that this reference makes it very clear that there is no genealogical connection between the Japanese and Jews, which have a Y-chromosome group comprised of a completely different set of haplogroups (see Genetic studies on Jews).

That is to say, Japanese Y-chromosomes are comprised of D, O, C and N, while the Y-chromosomes of Jews consist of J, E, and several others excluding D,O, C and N.

This evidence seems to make it clear that the Japanese Y-chromosome pool began to evolve its present character before Jews, a group that coalesced based on Judaism, came into existence, and that for all practical purposes the respective Y-chromosome pools are completely separate and distinct, with no notable overlap. --Ubikwit (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Actually, no, it doesn't make it clear. You appear to be inferring that this study is stating there is no connection - that is WP:OR. We're not here to make new assertions or deductions, which is what you seem to be doing. I've no problem if you are using an actual statement or deduction directly supported by the source, but that's not what you appear to be doing. You appear to be drawing conclusions, which is against policy. --HighKing (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Even the Abstract in the abovementioned genetics reference makes the statement that: "The results support the hypothesis of a CEntral Asian origin of the Jomonese ancestors, and a Southeast Asian origin of the Ancestors of the Yayoi, contra previous models based on morphoogical and genetic evidence." I will finish the reading the entire paper today before quoting a passage from it as a source.

The Wikipedia policy on OR states: "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

If you want to argue that because the paper only states that the Japanese are descended from the two groups mentioned above does not mean that they are not descended from people somewhere else that migrated in a different period, I'd call that a sophism. The conclusion is evident in the source, as it is based on Y-chromosome haplogroup types, and mentions the respective time frames and geographic areas pertaining to the populations from which the Japanese are descended. It is also possible to quote the source in a manner that simply declares in an unassailable manner where the ancestors of the Japanese were from, without directly stating a negation of the false claims of adherents of so-called "New religions".

Incidentally, those claims were first put forth by a Japanese named Yoshiro Saeki ([P. Y. Saeki]]), of whom no mentioned is made in the article. That in and of itself leads me to believe that you people are simply interested in supporting a false doctrine for reasons of religious affiliation, as opposed to contributing informatively to a topic that is strictly speaking historical. Since I will be quoting a source that contains some information on him, as soon as I have the time I will post a comment and delete the current unsupported statement.

As most of the genetics research on haplogroups is relatively new and the theories related to claims of descent from the Ten Lost Tribes basically on the fringe, scholars have not issued definitive statements on matter that are easily inferred from the published haplogroups studies. Moreover, the same types of conclusions are the basis of the references to genetics evidence on both the British Israelism and Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory. I'm awaiting delivery of the Parfitt book to see if he has anything to say about Japan, but the question remains as to why you haven't challenged the related genetics posts on those pages. In fact, they have been challenged and deleted in edits, and then reverted by other contributors.

It has been apparent that these issues were going to require arbitration for some time, as they appear to relate to an intransigent religious conviction or desire to promote a false doctrine. As far as I'm concerned, it might as well start here on a page relating to a kinship group from ancient history, as that further shows how absurd the stance you and Jon C. are attempting to maintain is.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It would help enormously if you looked at the evidence of behaviour, rather than adopting a petulant stance when questioned and being asked to clarify your edits with further references. And if you adopted a good faith approach you might avoid the stress and subsequent over reations involved while developing your conspiracy theory based on the commonplace occurence of two editors reverting your edits.

It is also apparent that you are editing while you are reading material, and developing and refining your position as you go. Be careful that this does not lead to a situation whereby you WP:OR and cherry pick ideas to support your desired position as you have been doing. Rather than accuse other editors of supporting a false doctrine for reasons of religious affiliation, it might help if you realize your edits were opposed for no other reason than your incorrect drawing of conclusions (in breach of WP:OR) and a lack of references to support your viewpoint. You've since found more references (research as you go) and are developing the article. That is great.

I'm not working against you, but you are making it very difficult to work with you. Nor do I give two hoots over some religious position, so don't waste your time trying to assign a convenient motive to your edits being questioned.

The current state of the article, in my opinion, is much better. It links this article, the Hata clan, directly to the Jewish common ancestry theory. The large quoted block of text could easily be summarized to read better. And a statement along the lines of "There is no evidence available, including modern DNA analysis, to support this hypothesis" could also be added without falling foul of policies. --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement, if I can be so presumptuous to take it as such.

It is not my aim to be petulant , but I am fairly well read in the history of Japan, and am approaching this topic also with respect to first hand encounters with some suspect Westerners residing in Japan that present dubious credentials as Christian ministers or priests in order to perform wedding ceremonies on the weekends. They are to an extent outsiders here, as are many Koreans, a significant number of which refuse to integrate into Japanese society, and I have encountered them associating with each other. This page has been subject to dubious edits by both Christians and Koreans trying to stake a claim to historical relevance with respect to Japanese culture in both anomalous and anachronistic manners. Korea also has the largest Christian population of any country in Asia, largely due to the Moonies post WWII, directly after liberation from the Japanese colonial yoke.

Most members of the Hata clan long ago integrated into Japanese society, as they enjoyed a fairly high and privileged status, as the numerous cites in the article from the historical records indicate.

Note that McLeod was a mysterious individual of whom very little is known, yet it is clear from the title page of his book that he was affiliated with the Free Church of Scotland, perhaps near where Thomas Glover was from. I am inclined to believe that they were masons, but the links are tenuous at best. However, I have recently uncovered a number of verifiable Freemason links with respect to members of the invisible college, with which Sadler was associated indirectly through the Hartlib circle. Sadler anonymously published the first substantial tome on BI in 1649, while he was a member of parliament, I believe. They were "Hebraist" Puritans with a sort of "promised land" notion that often found its way into discourse connected to colonial activities, and it would appear (to me) that such was the character of what McLeod was involved in attempting to promulgate with his writings. That is certainly an opinion related to my research. Except insofar as there are published works that provide explicit connections, as in the present case between McLeod and Saeki, I do not intend to make such assertions. It seems that there is a need for a substantial discussion of the involvement of high-profile Puritans in the early stages of development of the BI doctrine, and I believe that there are connections to Freemasonry involved there, but it is somewhat complicated. There has been a book written about the Invisible College by a professor named Robert Lomas, here is a related link: "Sir Robert Moray - Soldier, scientist, spy, freemason and founder of The Royal Society", lecture by Dr Robert Lomas at Gresham College, 4 April 2007. I intend to read that and other more academic studies on Sadler, John Dury and the Hartlib circle before discussing an edit.

Like McLeod, Saeki attempts to associate a socially elevated group in Japanese society with Jews, but if you check the recent edit I have added to the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article, you will see that there was a sort of leftist reaction from Jews residing in China that put forth a theory claiming that it was not the privileged classes of the Japanese that were descended from Jews, but the outcaste class. This at least serves to demonstrate the totally speculative nature of the assertions from all those involved, which is substantiated by modern research.

In any case, the Hata clan article is somewhat anachronistic with respect to the fact that the "clan" as such has not existed for more than a thousand years. That is so obvious to anyone working in the field that it is not ever mentioned in related texts. So it is difficult to explicitly state that the Hata clan is an entity from a bygone era without a source, though it is obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field, as they are only discussed in conjunction with the period between approximately 500-900 CE.

With respect to genetics, the recent paper I cited accounts for approximately 98% of the Y-chromosome pool, so I might post an edit paralleling the format on the BI page, substituting the Japanese data for European, something along the lines of the following:

Lack of consistency with genetics research

Human genetics does not support the notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Japanese. Genetic research on the Y-chromosomes of Jews has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East. (Nebel, 2001.)

Y-DNA Haplogroups J2 and, to a lesser extent, J1 are most commonly identified in Jewish people, which is in contrast to the Japanese. The more distant Haplogroups D, O, C and N account for approzimately 98% of the Y-chromosome pool of the Japanese, according to one recent study. (source)--Ubikwit (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Be careful about any of your own research and be sure to be ultra careful about presenting any conclusions that haven't been published. I'm sure you know that already. I suggest keeping the assertion regarding modern genetic studies as short as you can, with a link to the paper being cited. You don't need to expand too much to simply make the point. The second sentence above is fairly ideal. I suggest

A recently published study into the genetic origins of Japanese people does not support a close lineal link (as put forward by...) with people from the middle east or a link to a common jewish ancestry. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, the logic is weird. I think no one says the origin of Japanese people is Jewish ancestry, some persons are saying Hata clan might be. In other words, I think no one think Japanese = Hata clan, thus the above research will not be a good source to make discussion better. For example, can the above research detect Jewish ancestries in USA nowadays? If it is, any country can be related to anything as the origin, I think.174.23.241.112 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hata and Qin have transliterations, which in hebrew mean 'sin'/'go astray' Jewish views on sin#:~:text=The word most commonly translated,involves straying from that path., and Qin may be shortened Qin'ah in Hebrew, which translates to 'Lamentation', and the context being, Lamentations for the destruction by Babylon.

I am not expecting this to be added to the article, since it does constitute speculation, but then again, so is this topic. It is worth reading the 1908 translations of the Legend of Yamato, who can be seen in more than 4 major parallels as Jacob/Ya'akov; he has a second wife he loves, the first he hates, he wrestles with a greater power, he is blessed with a new name, and he kills his brother (or a bandit, same person) by beheading as in the Book of Jasher and Hebrew legend. I had updated the other page on this, with Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory but I clearly not cut to the task of editing. Although, isn't this a 'fringe theory' to begin?

Amaterasu sounds very much like Amathlaah/Amathlai, or in Hebrew, Ama (Maid servant) Tera (father of Abraham)?

I hope this information will gain some traction and help out these two threads, as I have been researching this rabbit hole for months. 180.150.64.82 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

2005 is OLD for genetic study. Plus, haplogroup study is pretty much useless in minority blood mixing with huge majoirty since it only represent pure male or pure female ancestor. In other words, after 10 generations it represent 0.2% of potential ancestor 2 /(2^10) and misses 99.8%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.103.220 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

66.91.103.220, I see that you have been warned about the WP:NOR policy. Do not removed reliably sourced material without a reason supported by other reliable sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Y-DNA is inherited solely along the paternal line (father to son). The lineage traced is the father's, father's, father's... paternal line. " "mtDNA is inherited solely along the matrilineal line (mother to child). The lineage traced is the mother's, mother's, mother's... maternal line." http://www.dnahaplogroups.org/introduction.php?type=start&page=1&l=n&__atoken=__NONE__ Misleading statement that based on misrepresentation of haplogroup study should be removed. Real7777 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement about Genetics

Is the following statement related to the hypothesis of Saeki since the hypothesis would not claim about the most of Japanese because of the number of Hata clan? Or even these small number rate of people's effect in genetics can be detected by the research(To add, other possibilities also exist)? "There is no evidence available, including modern DNA analysis, to support this hypothesis . A recently published study into the genetic origins of Japanese people does not support a genealogical link as put forward by Saeki."65.130.254.51 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not disprove it. See haplogroup section. --Real7777 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Real7777, I see that you have been warned about the WP:NOR policy. Do not removed reliably sourced material without a reason supported by other reliable sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is very misleading conclusion that imply things that is not justifiable by statistics.

Haplogroup are ancestral study of genetic of pure male(Y) or pure female(mitochondrial). Each study only represent 0.1% of ancestries after 200 years(10 generations) 1/(2^10)= 0.1%. So only 0.2% chance for small group to leave a trace in 200 years. http://real7777.wordpress.com/science/gene Or after 2000 years 0.0002% if it was random. So it is like a lottery odd and falsely representing the fact. It is somewhat equivalent of saying there is no evidence of anyone winning big lottery prizes looking at few sample of tickets.

Hata have 0.0002% likelihood of having haplogroup evidence in first place, or 99.9998% likey that study will not result in jewish gene in first place. Yet it is presented and implied as though it is great meaningful evidence. Real7777 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Y-DNA is inherited solely along the paternal line (father to son). The lineage traced is the father's, father's, father's... paternal line. " "mtDNA is inherited solely along the matrilineal line (mother to child). The lineage traced is the mother's, mother's, mother's... maternal line." http://www.dnahaplogroups.org/introduction.php?type=start&page=1&l=n&__atoken=__NONE__ Misleading statement that based on misrepresentation of haplogroup study should be removed.

Real7777 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent Wikipedia contributor, but it is not impossible that some Jewish traits are recessive [1]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2014.00462

That and it was commonly commanded or recommended in the biblical texts and apocypha to marry within the same family tree, to the degree of cousins as customary. 180.150.64.82 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not really how population genetics works. The very many (autosomal) markers that contribute to ethnic affinity (and are factored into analyses of such) are not generally as simple as dominant/recessive but additive and cumulative. Uniparental markers (maternal and paternal) are inherited traceably through direct lines of men and women.

But much more importantly, if the source makes no statements about the Hata (or the Japanese) possibly descending from Jews, then it is WP:OR to add such that. Such a position would have to be explicitly posited in a reliable source to not be OR. As Wikipedia editors we cannot add our own interpretations or analyses of sources to articles. As I mentioned in my edit summary, WP:OR is against Wikipedia policy. Also see WP:FRINGE. Skllagyook (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hata, Qin, Jew, Middle East, Korea

Hata clan Jewish theory is does not mean PURE blood. Not only that, it does not mean it had to go directly. For example, Qin refugee could went to wiman josean first then baekje or gaya then japan. Of course whole group does not have to move at same time nor same direction and it is likely that some scattering going on in each step. Silk road and pre-silk road interaction existed, so I believe whole chinese dynasty have some blood from metal and technology people in few waves of migration. Proof of evidence of one of wave is... Quote from Kaifeng wiki that shows Jews went to India then to china. "Three stelae with inscriptions were found at Kaifeng. The oldest, dating from 1489, commemorates the construction of a synagogue in 1163 (bearing the name 清真寺, Qingzhen Si, a term often used for mosques in Chinese). The inscription states that the Jews came to China from India during the Han Dynasty period (2nd century BCE-2nd century CE). It cites the names of 70 Jews with Chinese surnames, describes their audience with an unnamed Song Dynasty emperor"

In terms of genetics, things like high intelligence, height, lighter skin are some of likely Jewish or somewhere around that area contribution. Genetics are basically passed on from 23 chromosome pairs. After 20 generations, person can have 2^20 or million ancestors minus same ones.

Haplogroup genetic studies cannot disprove ancestry after 2nd generations since it only represent pure male or pure female ancestries only. Father's mother and mother's father side of genetics are not represented at all. There are 23 chromosome pair plus mitochondria so it is 1/47 or approximately 2%. Y haplogroup study only represent about 2% of genetics which are pass on in male. Basically it show who was father->father-father->father->... Mitochondrial Hapogroup represent about 2% too and mother->mother->mother->mother->... Northern Japanese, Tibeten, and Negrito(look similar to pure African pygmy) from Andamanese islands in India all have fairly similar Y haplogroup D but can look different. These studies are good for general migration trend, but it will miss small migration mix in with large population. Things like ruling class that brought metal and technology might not show after few hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real7777 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

http://real7777.wordpress.com/history/japan-origin

Japan Origin Speculation 1) 30kyp Pre-jomon by bangladish type 2) 15kyp Jomon (hmong/mia type) 3) Chinese pottery and symbol to Middle East 8kp 4) Middle East Sumer have empire structure, metal, writing,pottery, mason, etc 5) 5-6kyp kikai caldela and mini iceage bottleneck(haplogroup D survival) 6) Middle East technology, merchant etc. come back to china in various waves 7) 2200-3000yp Yayoi shang refugee and others 8) Wa (zhou wu refugee,wu=wo=wa,gokuryeo) 9) Silla/Gaya rules were found by Hogong(Wa) 10) Hata (qing refugee=baekje) 11) Asuka (Soga=so-gaya, Persepolis technology) 12) All kind of interaction with korea Yatagarasu three legged crow guide Emperor Jimmu. Shang guide Wa(zhou). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real7777 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the policy WP:OR has been pointed out to you in relation to your statements and edits. This talk page is WP:NOTFORUM --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I expanded. I provided link to wiki that have 1489 writing mentions 2nd century BCE Real7777 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hata clan. 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/20041226162520/http://www.keikyo.com/books/hada/Coming_of_Hadas.html to http://www.keikyo.com/books/hada/Coming_of_Hadas.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

not to restart an edit war, but do either of the two sources cited in the Spread section actually support the "The Hata are said to have been adept at financial matters" line? Is that credible, do they cite some contemporary source that expresses that sentiment? Because otherwise including a jewish stereotype as the opening line seems to conflict a little with the extensive effort spend to clarify that the Hata do not in fact descent from Jews. jonas (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)