" 

 == Reliable sources for updating this article == 

 I see there are some new (to this article under the screen names we are seeing here, but perhaps not new to Wikipedia) editors who are joining the talk page discussion here. Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in human molecular genetics that helps trace the lineage of people living in various places on the earth. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate  to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics ""for fun"" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. he  Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.  

 The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that ""it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.""  

  

 The guidelines, consistent with the  general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all ""Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that ""Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."" 

 On the topic of what recent human population genetics research says about classification of human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.  

 * 

 As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.  

 Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to a commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when Lewontin's primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that ""about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups"" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays  

 * 

 in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, ""There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification,"" pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author