:To take some of your points in order: 

 ::i dont think one guy's commentary is all that notable 

 :The article isn’t about what you or anybody else thinks. It’s about what the reputable sources say. 

 ::there seems to be some misreading of the literature going on these sources claim the OPPOSITE 

 :The misreading, alas, is yours. Do read what the text says more carefully, and don’t just jump to conclusions. 

 ::I looked through this book and couldn't verify this; on the contrary, they support the original equation 

 :See point above. 

 ::what is this? an amazon.com review? 
 :Wikipedia expects all statements to be based on published, verifiable  material. This involves quoting book titles, as you have done. Nobody mentioned Amazon. 

 ::In 1988, the famed anthropologist Munro S. Edmonson agreed that… 

 :Who is this person? If he is a reputable primary researcher, he should be mentioned alongside the others, not instead of them. Is 1988 research recent enough? 

 ::Inaccurate theories 
 :As the text states, most of these theories have already been mentioned, though not always very clearly. The list is merely a clear summary for ease of reference, which is why that’s what it calls itself.