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