:It is a kind of tough idea to get across but I will try to explain it as best I can. Perhaps the best idea is to read over this guideline. The idea is not for us contributors to make inferences directly from primary sources, such as the book mentioned. Rather, what is best is for sources once removed who are impartial, hopefully neutral, looking objectively at a primary source, to comment about a particular subject: and that is what we should cite in Wikipedia. You, saying this particular book says X, that you read the book, that you think the book makes this point or that point  problem is, you are not a reporter, paid by a newspaper to make impartial statements, to think neutrally, who is overseen by an editor, who can pay a financial price (ie getting fired by the paper) if you get facts wrong. Neither am I. Sometimes the distinction between primary and secondary sources is a judgment call. In this case, there are objective sources (Publishers Weekly, the Canadian paper) commenting on this book. To mention in this Wikipedia article how many man cave photos there are, seems like advertising this book, regardless of whether this was your intent. Wikipedia is a process, there is a learning curve as I have said, it does not come overnight, but my "overwriting" was not meant to undo your effort but rather to point you in a direction about how to contribute here, and it was meant in good faith.