`  :Two points. Firstly, we have only your (and maybe their own) word that this organization is indeed independent; Amazon, for example, disagrees. It's indeed possible that Amazon got it wrong, but from my point of view, it's equally possible that Amazon is, in fact, correct. Even if the organization were indeed legally independent, I don't think that alone suffices to make the source independent for Wikipedia's purposed. WP:Independent sources describes such sources as ``a source that has no vested interest in the subject and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the subject from a disinterested perspective.`` :Secondly, we require more from our sources than solely independence. We also require reliability. I see not the least indication that this book is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.   `