Talk:Bernard Lewis bibliography

Kramer and Abrahamson praise
Should this praise be in the article? "Provide other sources then, ditto" is not enough justification. We do have other sources anyway so this already satisfied anyway: See the Jacob Weisberg sourced praise.

Martin Kramer completed his Phd thesis at Princeton under the supervision of Bernard Lewis. Just as we wouldn't include praise from Bernard's mother, not matter how prominent she may or may not be, we should be careful in including praise from his own PhD student. This isn't an independent source. Surely there must be other prominent scholars who happened to not have such a close relationship; If there aren't why are we including the highest possible praise, when there isn't support. This current praise is so high that it is against Wikipedia:Wikipuffery.

The 2007 praise is from Col. Abrahamson. Is he notable scholar, or is the publication notable? The article itself is an opinion piece/commentary where Abrahamson builds up Lewis, and then uses Lewis to justify war policy. This kind of praise is already covered by following statement in the article "His advice was frequently sought by policymakers,..." Maidyouneed (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of table vs. list
I'm writing a new article about someone who has published 20+ books and articles. Should I do it as a table as shown in this article, or as a bullet point list,  as I see in most places. Thank you. 2A00:7C40:C210:221:E009:BC7A:345E:62C1 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)