Talk:Johns Hopkins University/Archive 1

Merge
Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.24.91 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Headline Photograph
Not a huge fan of the new headline photograph compared to the old one. The aesthetics are off. I suggest replacing it with the old picture, or using a new photograph taken by a competent photographer. --jimeroquai 16:14, October 1, 2006


 * Most of the new photos seem of poor quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.82.211 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Admissions section
Why did someone take out the admissions section? And the student publications section looks a mess. The second half of the page is in really bad shape compared to previously. I hope someone reverts these changes.

"Social life is under siege"
I deleted the line in social life saying "The Johns Hopkins Newsletter on October 6, 2005 complained "Hopkins Social Life is Under Siege." This quotation is grossly out of context. If one read the article, he or she would see that it is about new noise ordinances in Baltimore City.

Encyclopedic?
Do you think this line is truly appropriate for encyclopedic content?

"Although a valuable education is obtained through Hopkins, this is not without what many undergraduates call periods of trials and tribulations. As a challenging university with high admissions standards, classes are filled with highly able students preparing for the transition to graduate or professional school. At times, undergraduates may sacrifice their social lives, but always for the pursuit of higher knowledge."

To me, a simple explanation that academics are rigorous will do; there is no need to go on about trials, tribulations, and the pursiut of knowledge.

Allegation: This is "A Puff Piece on Wikipedia"
There seems to be a discussion going on on the nettime.org mailing-list regarding the politics of open content, relating to the rigorous control of the information displayed on this page.

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0309/msg00161.html


 * Note the 'alterations' alluded to in the above link: . No one is 'censoring' this page. They do, however, remove POV nonsense, like what was added. The follow up to the thread bears this out . ThereIsNoSteve 07:56, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The discussion is not the POV nonsense, you are correct there, it is the use of this encyclopedia for advertising. I understand offline, 'Closed' encyclopedia's are used for that as well so there's nothing new there. Is there a model for negotiating content, collaboarative editing that allows for the different views to be heard?


 * The only discussion in the link is about how a guy inserted nonsense, it was removed, and then he jumped to the conclusion that someone must be monitoring the page. Anyone can edit the page and add to the page. The encyclopedia is not being used for advertising. ThereIsNoSteve 08:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Allright this discussion is kept on a thight leash: the point I wanted to make is made already. I was very enthousiastic when I first learnt about the wikipedia project but now I see the drawbacks of the use of a wiki for the purpose of an encyclopedia. The following discussion is similar to this one, in my view: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_discussion/Articles_on_commercial_enterprises

Less PR, more facts
Yesterday I toned down some of the language in this article, to make it more factual and to sound less like a marketing exercise. JHU is a fine university and this should be evident from the factual claims (of which there are many in the piece). In the meantime, an anonymous user has reinstated the word "elite" in the first sentence, which is inevitably POV. I have removed it again. An objective claim about the standing of the university would be fine in Wikipedia, but a bald assertion is not.

I have also changed the sentence about entry a little, to emphasise the quality of the students over the selectiveness of the institution. I deleted the line about the private school background of the students, because it seems to be phrased as a good point, where in fact it undermines the assertion of the quality of the students (disproportionately privileged rather than disproportionately able).

Overall there is plenty of factual material in the piece, much of which demonstrates JHU's claims to high standing, but it is still written more as a paean of praise (as by an alumnus or PR person) rather than a dispassionate, factual, encyclopedia piece. BrendanH 09:48, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Elite"
To the anonymous user who keeps re-instating the word "elite": JHU is clearly a world-class university, if a little less well-known than Harvard/Yale/Stanford/MIT etc. I can see why you want to highlight this fact upfront, but this is not the way to do it in an encyclopedia. It would be fine in marketing material, where readers tolerate (indeed, expect) unsubstantiated assertions, but in an encyclopedia statements of fact, rather than POV, are needed. And as I said above, the article is full of statements of fact that substantiate JHU's high standing. Finally, not entirely tongue-in-cheek: if you really feel you have to say it, it's probably because you feel people don't think it's true. BrendanH 08:42, May 17, 2004 (UTC)\


 * Other articles, such as the University of Chicago, have gotten around this by citing dictionary definitions or guidebook definitions. Of course, I am not certain if they would necessarily say JHU is elite, but it would perhaps be a good way to tease out the matter.

People of Johns Hopkins
Propose splitting the list of into it's own separate article, a la List of University of Pennsylvania people, List of Harvard University people, List of Stanford University people, List of University of Chicago alumni, et al.

The list is growing and expanding and getting a bit big, which is a good thing. It just thats it's taking up a lot of space on the page, so i think it might be a good idea to migrate the list to it's own article under the name, People of Johns Hopkins University or something similar, in order to differeninate people that are associated with university as opposed to the hospital which though associated with the university not everyone at the hospital is associated with the university more then the hospital or something. If no objections, will go-ahead in the next couple of days, also will mitigate the creation of a new cat looking at Category:Johns Hopkins University. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well since their was no comment, for or against, i took the lead and made the changes. The list of people, with the exception of the university presidents and refrences in television shows, has been moved to List of Johns Hopkins University people, a news category, Johns Hopkins University, has been created, which is instead of multiple categories on the main article they are now assiocated with the category. So thats is that. --Boothy443 | comhrá 04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Faculty Size
The sidebar says JHU has 484 faculty, but it is not conceivable for a major university of Hopkins' stature, with programs in so many different fields, to have so few professors. Major medical schools -- and Hopkins' certainly qualifies -- generally have over 1,000 professors by themselves. The Arts & Sciences at JHU may have 484 faculty, but even there this number seems low. I don't know what the correct university-wide figure might be, but it can't be just 484.
 * According to the Hopkins website, Full-time faculity is 3,100; staff (university) 15,000 ; (hospital and health system) 12,900; their are some other numbers in the infobox that look off as well like number of students, wich the site list as 18,235 but does not list the split between grad or undergrad. Source website: http://www.johnshopkins.edu/glance/index.html --Boothy443 | comhrá 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC0
 * if anyone thinks it's worthwhile, i'm sure i can find a citation, but it's common knowledge that jhu and all its many tentacles are the largest private employer in the state of maryland.Toyokuni3 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * undergrad enrollment is only 4500 or so. Obviously there is  a lot more to the university.  Someone should add that it sucks to go there as an undergrad and is a total waste of money unless you are going pre-med.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references
The title character of the Fox medical drama House, M.D., went to Johns Hopkins, right? As I'm not sure, I'm waiting on somebody's verification. --Omphaloscope 22:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did.
 * So did Dr. Burke from Grey's Anatomy. --Antelan 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Julie Stiles played in a movie the prince & me where she wanted to attend JHU's medicine program. However they end up showing the Homewood campus in the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337697/

3 Images on this page

 * I have a digital camera and live ten minutes away from all of these sites. I have to run some errands over at Homewood Campus this week and I'm happy to re-take these photos and upload them if nobody provides any kind of license information on them. --Jfruh 20:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say go for it, the pictures in question are from teh hopkins webs site, i think one of the tour pages, but i cant seem to find the exact images at the moment, i have seen thme the before though.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I updated these. --Jfruh 23:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Natural light in Eisenhower?
Sez the article:

"Only two of the library's six stories are above ground; the rest are beneath, though architects designed the building so that every level has windows and natural light."

Is this really true? The underground stacks seem pretty sealed off from the outside world to me. --Jfruh 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Check the south wall of the building (facing the power plant). (omphaloscope talk ) 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Peabody
I've renamed and restructures the sections so that makes more sense, I think. Where does Peabody belong? In its own section? Omphaloscope &raquo; talk 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but i would nto go in depth, being that their is an article already on the subject. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to expand on the Peabody info, just to put the existing paragraph in the right place. Omphaloscope &raquo; talk 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Humm, maybe it should just stay where it is? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Library lore?

 * Only two of the library's six stories are above ground; the rest are beneath, though architects designed the building so that every level has windows and natural light. The design accords with a bit of traditional campus lore which says no structure on campus can be taller than Gilman Hall, the oldest academic building.

I am sooooooo tempted to edit this to read:
 * Only two of the library's six stories are above ground; the rest are beneath. Traditional campus lore holds that when built all six stories were above ground, but the structure has been gradually sinking due to the architects' failure to allow for the weight of the books.

Dpbsmith (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wyman Park
A note on Wynman Park would seem to be in order. Loodog 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wyman Park is adjacent to the Homewood campus, but is a Baltimore City park and is not part of the University itself... --Jfruh 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * along those same lines; the article states that the bma is on the campus.(see: in film) is that so?Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i just checked out the campus map for unrelated reasons, and t5he bma is clearly not included. i am going to make the change.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wyman park is the western boundary though. And the BMA is practically on the campus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate Lax article?
There isn't a separate section on JHU Men's Lacrosse...I would think it would warrant a separate article. Also, the section that says that Princeton and Virginia are 2 of the main rivals...says who? Consensus usually is that Syracuse and/or Maryland are the 2 biggest rivals, the answer usually depending on when you went to JHU.--Diogenes00 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Publications - The Black & Blue Jay
Has anyone seen The Black &amp; Blue Jay on campus recently? Can anyone verify its disappearance? If it is dead, then &mdash; more importantly &mdash; can anyone revive the publication? It sounds really cool. Omphaloscope &raquo; talk 10:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's back! Omphaloscope talk 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

unsourced accolades
This needs a source: "Notably, the biomedical engineering department is widely recognized as one of the best in the nation."

This needs a new source: The computer science doctoral program is ranked 6th in the world. This is the current source given: . It's six years old, however. A newer source actually breaks the departments down by criteria, so there is no absolute single ranking given. If any allusion to this research appears in the article, it will have to be a discussion, not just a number. I'm not sure where to begin with this. Omphaloscope &raquo; talk 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of "Crime" section
I've removed the section on "Crime", which you can read at Johns Hopkins University/Crime.

My gripes:


 * 1) There should be information on security and crime on the various campuses, not just Homewood.
 * 2) And "crime" needs to be more broadly interpreted; the term encompasses all illegal activity including white-collar crime from underage drinking to copyright violations.
 * 3) The text I removed implied heavily that the Homewood Campus was somehow besieged by murderers. It is my understanding (and I have no citation for this) that following the enormous security upgrade the Homewood campus is actually one of the safest in the country, despite its location.

If you think this text belongs back in the article, feel free to revert my change and discuss below.

Omphaloscope talk 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus, Homewood is not exactly in a part of Baltimore that is going to appear on "The Wire" any time soon. --Jfruh (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by that but the neighborhood, esp to the east, used to be quite dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just redirected Johns Hopkins University/Crime back to the main article. That section is indeed pretty lousy as it consists mostly of unrelated discussion of crime in Baltimore. As the section is giving undue weight to something that is not a significant part of what Johns Hopkins University is. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

School of Professional Studies
It's not clear from the press releases whether the School of Professional Studies is being replaced entirely by the two new schools, or if the business and education programs are just being split off. Looking at the web site, it seems that there are some programs in the school (public safety leadership in particular) that would not fit well in either a business or an education school, but the fate of the old school, or a new name for it, isn't really discussed in the release. -- Vary | Talk

On "People affiliated"
User:68.34.74.181 (talk), who has been vandalizing some other pages, is adding a list of Hopkins alumni to this page. I just wanted to point out that these names are smartly tucked away in a separate list (List of Johns Hopkins University people), because there are far too many to list here, and no clear way to determine who would make a shortlist. Omphaloscope talk 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JHUSeal.png
Image:JHUSeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Whiting School does not have ten academic departments
I have deleted the reference to "Applied Physics" under the list of academic departments for the Whiting School of Engineering. Applied Physics is a master's-level program offered through the Whiting School's Engineering and Applied Science Programs for Professionals (EPP). EPP is the continuing education component of the Whiting School. A stub will be added soon that will cover EPP and all the programs it offers. Whitecottageco 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)whitecottageco

Fair use rationale for Image:JHUSeal.png
Image:JHUSeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JHUlogo.png
Image:JHUlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First Ph.D., needs revision
Johns Hopkins University was not the first university in America to confer the Ph.D. (or the doctor's degree of any kind).

Yale University holds that title, conferring the Ph.D. degree on three candidates in 1861, fifteen years before Johns Hopkins opened.



Jlalbee 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Coed Students at Johns Hopkins University needs to be merged and/or deleted
History of Coed Students at Johns Hopkins University (sic) was created 28 November 2007, IMHO needs to be merged into Johns Hopkins University and/or deleted. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Did it. Why didn't you just do it yourself??? 214.13.24.91 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Campuses
The article lists only the Homewood and medical campuses, and neglects to mention the Peabody campus. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mention the DC campus, except in the lead. Here is a picture I took today if someone writes about the DC campus.  APK  yada yada  02:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a mention of SAIS and a link to it, so it's already been covered. I'll see if I can incorporate it into the SAIS page ... it'd be cool if you took a picture of that portion of the Berlin Wall that's there (if it's still there, it's been a while) and if you took a picture of the Advanced Academic Studies building, which I think is pretty much on the opposite side of the street. 214.13.24.91 (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the SAIS page ... they have an image similar to the one you put on, but it has some bad-ass DC cherry blossoms in bloom in it. 214.13.24.91 (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just went through and made the campuses & divisions portion in-line with what JHU has on their page. The bit about the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute was moved to the Whiting school's page ... it's not a "top level" division, it falls under the Whiting School ... like the Advanced Academic Programs, though they have their own building ... which is in D.C. ... falls under Krieger. 214.13.24.91 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University vs. The Johns Hopkins University
Is there any reason why there's no "The" ? If you go to JHU.edu, the naming convention is "The". Examples:

- http://www.jhu.edu/ - http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/

... I'm going to follow The Ohio State University's page as a guideline. 214.13.24.91 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Athletics too pov
the entire athletics section is entirely too pov. words like 'powerhouse' simply have no place here. and women's lax --'only losses to'-- and then lists 7 losses. 'only' 7 losses! i'm as big a jays fan as you'll find, but this is way over the top.Toyokuni3 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes because I wanted to add something about the baseball team making the world series this year ... but why didn't you just make the above changes yourself??? 214.13.24.91 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * i can do that,but before doing any but the most minor of edits, i like to invite some discussion. i mean, that's my opinion, others may feel differently. perhaps i expressed the idea a little forcefully, it was late and i was tired. not to mention the fact that, although i have been following hopkins sports since 1968, i've only been doing wikipedia since march, and still feel somewhat at sea.if you've read the whole discussion on the article, it has come under criticism from others for being too much like a recruiting brochure.incidentally, in the aftermath of the unfortunate episode in foxboro (sp.?) i've lost track. how did the baseball team do? anyway, what's your opinion?Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you 100% about the changes being needed, I changed 'em. you're probably right to be cautious, but if they're just unsourced adjectives, you can probably cut them without anyone really noticing. the baseball team lost to trinity in the finals ... it was a double elimination tournament, so they lost to them the first time they played, beat them for game 1 of the finals, and then lost to them in game 2 ... so at least they went the distance ... but it was disappointing, since I'd hope they'd win after the lacrosse team lost the day before. 214.13.24.91 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm good at doing the appropriate research after opening my mouth. i got around to looking at athletic descriptions in other university articles. actually, what is/was here is pretty typical. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "'2008 JHU Sustainability Initiatives'" :

Student demographics
The student demographics box has twice seen the U.S. census information removed. It's easy to read into ulterior motives for why this was done and I'll refrain from doing that now. However, please stop removing this information as it provides necessary context. In fact, the table would be substantially improved if graduate numbers could likewise be added. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rankings
The rankings section is starting to rebloat up. There are several notable omissions of notable rankings from this section: Forbes, Washington Monthly, Newsweek International, Center for Measuring University Performance, Princeton Review, and the 1995 National Research Council rankings. I would recommend eliminating the imprecise and overlong list of graduate programs and emphasizing these instead as is the case in other major university articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more things: (1) Please use citation templates. (2) Do not cite anything except the original source for ranking (e.g., don't cite the JHU Medical page for the US News ranking - just cite the US News page). Madcoverboy (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of the rankings which are cited above, with perhaps the exception of the 1995 NRC, are largely ignored by the universities themselves (Forbes, Washington Monthly, Princeton Review, CMUP), and certainly have not achieved the sort of currency of the U.S. News and World Report surveys, nor those of Academic Analytics or the Chronicles of Higher Education. The 1995 NRC, being now well more than a decade out of date (the data itself aren't even from 1995 but the year or so prior), is perfectly irrelevant; no one would seriously contend that data collected from that period reflects even dimly on the present state or strengths of American research universities.  (Now, once the latest survey, apparently slated for release, belatedly, in February 2009, becomes available, that would be worth considering.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.26.200 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the "dubious" note of how consistently those departments have been so ranked, one need only examine, for instance, the Chronicles of Higher Education records of rankings, the Academic Analytics trends since its inception, and the relevant U.S. News and World Report rankings as they have been released over the course of the last several years. A citation to this effect would seem more than a trifle operose.  One might also consult the relevant departments' placement records (which, as any within the academic world would agree, is a the true mark of a graduate program's strength) which would readily confirm the remark as amended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.26.200 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are ignored by the universities themselves does not give us cause to ignore them as well. We present a NPOV and, for better or worse, if there is a reputable publication out there publishing rankings, we cannot emphasize or give undue weight to one publication's rankings while excluding another's. They each have different methodologies and emphasize different aspects, none necessarily better or worse than another. I will add Forbes, WM, Princeton, and CMUP tomorrow if they're not up there already. I as well am looking forward to the 2008-09 NRC rankings, but the 1995 rankings are not entirely irrelevant. As long as the year is included, the reader can perform his or her own discounting of them. NRC is probably the most neutral of any of these sources anyways because it is non-profit and doesn't need to sell magazines and should certainly be included in any section. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The last remark did not say, as you originally suggested (prior to editing), that the new NRC rankings (which, in point of fact, will not reflect 2008-2009, but at least one or two years prior, as usual) are "entirely irrelevant." What was pointed out was that the 1995 NRC rankings, as thoroughly out of date -- that is, they obviously do not capture, nor pretend to speak to, the present strengths of the institutions, sitting faculty, and so their graduate training -- is, for any intent and purpose, thoroughly irrelevant. One could just as reasonably cite a ranking from 1985 or 1955 -- worthwhile, perhaps, if stated as an historical aside, but utterly beside the point for anyone interested in the current state of affairs, such as the disputed section of this entry attempts to address. (A discriminating reader of course can count and discount what he pleases; the point, however, is that the entry, at this juncture in its body, is speaking of its rankings such as they stand at the present.) And, as concerns the other publications lists, one may freely include whatever rankings one wishes -- one could, in fact, include the rankings of any idle or even interested observer (say, an undergraduate at a rival institution, or at JHU itself) -- but surely even Wikipedia can appreciate the irrelevance of such trifling inclusions. Clearly what you mean to contend is that any journal of opinion or news which wishes to snatch up a fistful of profit, so long as it has enough publicity and clout behind its name, deserves to be mentioned. Not much of a principle, that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.26.200 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One cannot include whatever rankings one wishes, they must be reliable and verifiable - you draw a false equivalency between the Forbes organization and "an undergraduate at a rival institution". One cannot exclude Forbes, WM, Princeton, CMUP or any other even if they have no currency among administrators because the publishing organizations themselves as well as their methodologies are ostensibly/demonstrably independent and reputable. Invoking loaded and peacockish phrases such as "consistently" conveys no useful information while invoking a citatation with no historical information provides very thin veneer of verifiability. To fulfill our obligations to WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:BOOSTER policies, simply dispassionately state what the ranking is and who performed it rather than attempting to contextualize, justify, reconfigure, or exclude rankings. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The alleged falsity of the comparison would depend upon how "scrupulously" one could, or does, put the Wikipedia standards of "reliability" and "verifiability" to substantive work, or, more precisely, how one wishes to interpret those purported criteria. The canon for "reliability," for instance, invokes "high-quality news organizations" as its emblem for satisfactory justification; that of "verifiability" simply bows to organizations known for "fact-checking and accuracy."  How one actually spells out the substance of those phrases falls hard upon the preference of the observer: in this case, one who has a taste for matters fiscal or unblushingly capitalistic might trust Forbes, those who have used Princeton Review's preparatory materials might prefer its ranking (and, to be clear, Princeton Review is in no way affiliated with the eponymously named university).   (What would make Forbes 'high-quality' aside from the glossy covers and fistfuls of cash, or 'reputable' aside from the preferred taste of certain readers, and a privately assembled ranking not -- as was, say, Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet in the mid-90s -- still remains to be clarified.)  And, to be sure, even the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the many stories they have accurately (if seedily) broken over the years, satisfies so flaccid standard of verifiability as that cited, and reliability, as pointed out, can be settled similarly loosely.  (Does 2 out of 5 stories "correct" make it reliable, or 1 of 5, or maybe every last iota of every story?  Not even the NYT can boast the last, and probably errs nearer the 80 - 90% mark, but that is plainly not to be stated too absolutely.  Distinctions, of course, do not perish by vagueness, but they certainly do blur.) Your confused mingling of descriptions like "ostensibly/demonstrably" -- presumably what is only ostensibly the case is not demonstronably so, otherwise it would not be "ostensibly" but "obviously" or "plainly" shown -- in your mention of the ballyhooed "standards," announces, I think, the fundamental problem with your argument.  There is no such hard and fast distinction, in such matters, between what is only "ostensibly" the case and "demonstrably" so, for one must in arguing such cases recur to one's preferred method of demonstration, which, again, stumbles over the same trouble of vague, controvertible formulations.
 * As to the present case, the word "consistently" was included to point out that, over the course of the several surveys there mentioned, these departments have, in each case, ranked within the top ten (as opposed to merely appearing here and there, sporadically). But let us say, for the sake of argument, that these are appropriately cited in the article, and yet the cavilling still persists.  Perhaps one might object that the sense of "consistently" ought to be constituted differently -- say, as being so ranked in 4 such surveys, or maybe 5, perhaps even 10?  How would one, with any semblance of principle, choose? -- but that sort of decision, which involves the interpretation of vague ordinary language phrasings, must itself either resort to some preferred method of demonstration ('consistently' shall be settled through such and such predicates, etc., which can itself be disputed) or bare fiat, auctoritas personae (e.g., "I say this counts as 'consistently', and if you object, shove off").
 * But this discussion, of course, doesn't simply a dissolve into a silly aside, a childish spat over terms, but pierces to the very bottom of the trouble with Wikipedia. Ordinarly in these cases, the anointed editors, themselves enthroned as the "reputable" authority in such prudential judgments, ruthlessly lord over these choices, dictating what is defeasible and what not, perhaps consontantly with some established practice, but perhaps just one of those whispered certainties of the "gut instinct" about what is trustworthy and what not.  Wikipedia hasn't any such independent editorial board, of course, and so these decisions fall to readers, such as ourselves, solicitous about the "accuracy" of these entries, to parse the twaddle and vapors from the hard matter.  But at least this should be sufficient to point out with what implausible difficulty, treading toward impossibility, this is to be done.
 * But what is genuinely 'peacockish' in all these cases -- how unlovely a thought that is! -- is brandishing such vague and arbitrary formulae, as if so many sublime and honeyed droplets of the "good judgement," to rub away the blurriness of our language, and so our life. Perhaps 'peacockish' then isn't quite right for this case -- only naive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.245.54 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried my hardest to parse through these recriminations of Wikipedia's participatory model and policies, reputability of some select organizations, and an overly critical reading of my particular choice of words to draw out some thesis as it pertains to the present discussion but found none. Wikipedia is not ever going to be perfect but the participatory model enables us to approximate it over long enough time scale through good-faith iteration. Are Forbes, WM, CMUP, Princeton, etc. perfect? Certainly not. But neither do U.S. News, THES, ARWU, CHE, Academic Analytics and their particular methodologies have a monopoly on "truth" and reputability despite whatever whatever value administrators, faculty, students, parents, funding agencies, etc. choose to ascribe to some but not others. Our job is not to parse or prioritize, but simply provide enough verifiable and reliable information to present a neutral and dispassionate perspective on the topic and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
 * To the issues of neutrality and NPOV/dispassion, the problem with words such as "consistently" or "top 10" is that they imply an immutability or inviolability of this status. Of course, in practice, there is little if any significant variability in the rankings - thus I expect that the 2008/09 NRC rankings will not be substantially different from the 1995 or 1980s NRC rankings for the "top 10" just as the top 10, top 20, top 100 in the US News rankings are also the same from year to year as well. Rather than "consistently" simply describe the exact nature of this consistency: top 10 in the past 3 years is much different animal than top 10 in the past 25 years.
 * Ultimately, the problem with providing these lists of highly-ranked graduate programs is that they obscure the fact the JHU or any other university offers graduate programs that aren't ranked in the top 10. The article conveniently fails to mention that John's Hopkins business, chemical engineering, information science, and psychology programs aren't ranked highly or at all despite being offered alongside the other stronger programs. I suggest simply limiting the rankings section to a cross-section of university or school-level assessments rather than delving into the devlish details of appropriately and neutrally presenting information on graduate programs. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you, of course, of reading closely; I suppose that much has already been borne out by the above, a bit silly cavilling about matters which were not even disputed.
 * "Recriminations" are how you describe the mentioned concerns; I believe, rather, that they sum up a widely held view about Wikipedia's chief failing, namely, that without some sort of editorial authority there is no _principled_ way for someone to offer critique or revisions to an article on alleged factual grounds (that is, a principle apart from vague allusions to standards of verfiability or reliability), and so no reason why the article, as it was originally presented, ought to have been pared down as "rebloated up."

As to your particular objections:
 * (i) I do not believe that it was argued that any ranking system wields a "monopoly on 'truth'" (why the word "truth" was placed in quotation marks seems a little bizarre in this context, seeing as you are arguing for "impartial" or "dispassionate" accounts of program rankings, i.e. those which, presumably, are adjudged objectively the case, usually distillated into the ordinary usage of the English predicate "true"), nor was it even argued that one should NOT include any of the rankings previously mentioned. It was simply contended that there is no _principled_ way to determine which rankings ought to be cited and which to be tossed away as merely "partial" or "biased."  The arguments hinted at in the foregoing were simply a sketch of a longer critique (which I'm sure you've heard, in some form or another, before) about why any suggestion that one could, with any absolute precision, edit in this way (absent conventionally appointed authority), should fall rather flat.  The only positive suggestion which was mentioned, however, was that perhaps the worthwhile metrics are those standardly preferred amongst academics (who, according to your much-thumped standards of reliability, might just qualify as authoritative on this matter), but, once again, these are not urged completely to the exclusion of others.
 * (ii) The problem with the word "consistently," as you think it, is that it implies "immutability" or "inviolability" -- usages which are, at the least, highly non-standard in English. If one were to remark, for instance, that a baseball team has consistently performed well this season, what competent speaker of English would thereby infer that they shall forever remain that great, or could not possibly falter (say, next season, or even in the next game)?  This is not so much an argument in your favor as a perfectly queer straining of the ordinary semantics of the term "consistently."  But, again, on the reasoning furnished in the previous argument, there really is no reason why one could not adopt your, admittedly quite bizarre understanding of the term, and so conclude any divergence from it was mere bosh -- but that, of course, was just the original point, if evidently ungrasped.
 * I don't believe my reading of "consistently" in this context is unconventional, but rather, you read it too narrowly. Given the motivation by those who seek to imprecisely invoke it, it is an imprecise term that masks an ill-defined or cherry-picked historical record to substantiate normative claims about continuity or regularity - necessarily implying future outcomes especially in the present tense. To use your example, the competent speaker of English claiming the consistency of their team's performance this season almost certainly implies and intends to convey that this record has some bearing on the team's chances in the future post-season. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (iii) The latter of your arguments -- namely, that by mentioning those programs in which JHU excels we thereby obscure those in which it does not -- is, with any due respect, downright crude, a trifle silly really. First, the article, as originally was edited, did in fact mention why it was that JHU's programs in education and business are not ranked (that is, because they were only very recently founded); whoever elected to excise those pieces of the original contribution, whether your or not, has certainly done your argument no favor.  Second (and the main thrust), the contention that one must mention every ranking or none reduces, upon the slightest reflection, to an absurdity: in order to enumerate those attributes correctly ascribed to some object (e.g. top ten ranking of some departments to an institution), one must further proceed to elaborate those which are not?  So: "Johns Hopkins is located in Baltimore, MD, but not in Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, etc." or "MIT's faculty includes the renowned linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky, but not the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson, famed mathematician Andrew Wiles, etc."  I believe that one mentions, in this case, the particular strengths in order to present, accurately, a picture of the institution such as it stands now (which, I gather, is the point of such rankings) for those, e.g. who might be so inclined to pursue those fields, or wish to read the latest research in American departments on such and such a topic, etc.  No one, of course, would object to the addition of the relevant rankings of its philosophy or sociology programs -- in fact, I had intended to append it myself! -- but surely having been ranked amongst the top ten of a given field deserves some special mention in a section such as this (is that not its whole point?).  Again, one might object that this "conveniently" obscures the true picture of the institution.  But this bluntly misses the point: one can only enumerate finitely many facts which are true of the object under consideration, and those which find a place in an article such as this are those most salient to the topics respectively treated of (rankings, history, etc.).  That such facts as, for instance, "Johns Hopkins has graduated such and such many students with interests in post-Franco Spanish history, whose names are as follows," or "to date, such and such many sneezes have been recorded by Johns Hopkins undergraduates in the year 2008," are not rattled off in this article obscures nothing about the institution; it simply goes to show that no one thought it much worth recording.  The analogy, to make it painfully plain, is that the ranking of JHU's other departments, since not especially notable, simply don't merit mention (this is, I think, an obvious point, even to encyclopedia enthusiasts).  And, what's more, does not the omission itself speak clearly enough?  (Otherwise, again, it would have been mentioned amongst the top ten as cited!)  I do not think this is so much an obfuscation as a mere pointing out of notable sights.  (Again, isn't that just the point of such an article?)
 * I removed this original mention because I believed the phrasing sought to discount the reasons for poor/non-existent rankings when justifications and excuses could easily be made for any ranking. The omissions does not speak for themselves because unless we were to provide a list of all graduate programs or that JHU is somehow so comprehensive that it offers programs in every field ever ranked. While I believe that you and I are of the same mind regarding attempting to enumerate everything: clearly some facts are more notable than others. Ranking the undergraduate program or institution-wide metrics should be certainly be included; the issue of graduate programs is clearly more problematic. I believe large school-level programs such as medicine, law, business, government/public affairs/policy, and education should be included, but more departmental (chemistry, biology, etc.) or sub-departmental programs (cell biology, physical chemistry, development psychology, etc.) likely aren't notable enough. In this way we can skirt the problems of enumeration you outline by abstracting whenever possible and omitting rankings when it becomes unenviable or untenable to ensure equity in parsing or describing them all.
 * You argue that replicating and privileging rankings for strong programs provides some utility to potential applicants. Given narrow mission of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, it seems incongrument to expect us to also fulfill the responsibilies of admissions pamphlets and department webpages as well - one would no more consult Britannica or Encarta to decide among schools to attend. I believe the cost to the neutrality of the article by omitting mention of weaker programs is far greater or the brevity of the article by including them are each far greater than including the strong programs in the name of utility. This would imply that the currently-constituted graduate ranking paragraph would have to be done away with. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (iv) As a minor aside, I do think you should look through those rankings a little more closely, in all the mentioned fields, before hazarding the speculation that reputations do not alter radically from year to year, or more preposterously, decade to decade. Changes of faculty, drifts within disciplines, and all manner of political strife, can lift some departments dramatically higher, and nudge others to a reputational oblivion, within a few short years.  Look, for instance, at the spectacular rise of NYU or Rutgers in philosophy over the last 15 years, or the achievements of UC Santa Barbara in its physics program, or the general trend toward Berekely, UT Austin, UMich, and other such universities over the last half century.  You may very well be surprised by the NRC rankings in certain disciplines, and perhaps even overall -- hardly for me to say dispassionately, of course, or you, for the data have not yet been released publicly for our inspection.
 * I probably overreached in asserting that there is no significant variance in rankings at all, only that between successive periods of time such variance is likely to be low and/or insignificant. At the same time, the practice of adopting arbitrary breakpoints of "Top 10" or "Top 25" often serves to confuse above-average programs with truly distinguished programs, exclude similar programs owing to trivial statistical differences, and confound practicioners of diverging schools of thought with different notions of quality. That is to say, I am not opposed to transparency or drawing quantitative comparisons among institutions, only reifying these statistical entities into rankings and then fetishizing the rankings to the detriment of the more valuable descriptive data underlying them (I'll end my foray into Marxism here :) ) Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not, I think, disagree too fundamentally on any of these points (respecting the article itself, anyway); you seem rather to object quite a bit to arguments never propounded, or those only faintly resembling the ones that were. I do believe one should add as many bits of detail as worthwhile, necessary, etc., but, to make it plain, nothing about remarking that the stated departments fare well 'consistently' amongst certain, largely favored rankings in the academic world amounts to rhetorical chicanery or tomfoolery.  The crux of our dispute rests upon the sense of the term 'consistently', and your quarrel with the remark that these departments are as highly regarded as alleged in the article.  Again, I refer you to the cited sources, as well as the US News and World Report rankings several years old now, and suggest that all this cavilling and chatter should, in that light, fall quiet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.245.54 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the crux of our disagreement stems from our different notions of what purpose the ranking section serves within the larger mission of the article generally. Relating the "quality" of departments might be more appropriate on the specific school-level pages than attempting to summarize them on the university-level page. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a final thought, I think it should be said that, although everything reads at moments rather testily and pertly, I do think that you've done admirably good work on these and similar entries, and that, for what it's worth, you have done much to make the web a little more honest and decent a place. (Your inclusions, incidentally, are, as I would expect, not at all objectionable.)  I only think it worth point out that the institution, though obviously strong in medicine, international relations, etc., also has, and has had for a while, formidable strengths in those others disciplines, too.  Of course, that's only my pet peeve (and one hardly to my benefit to point out, as it doesn't affect me one whit personally).  Again, my compliments for your diligent scrubbings!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.245.54 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's nice to have a well-reasoned debate devoid of typical collegiate partisanship and fervor! I'd only ask that you use threaded formatting (colons) sign your comments with a ~ so that future information archeologists can better unpackage our ramblings. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability
The aside on sustainability, although a worthy endeavor, detracts from the article. The information should be moved to an article on sustainability and a link could go from this article to that one. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is often the case that this content is often the result of drive-by POV editors - in this case, likely someone affiliated with the sustainability efforts at JHU. Regular WP editors (myself included) often make the mistake of trying to accomodate what are POV pushers for all intents and purposes by fitting it into the rest of the article despite its undue weight. Now I don't mean to say that this information should be stripped out in its entirety, but rather that there may well be valuable information in the section or the references that can be distilled on the scale and nature of JHU activities that should absolutely be included in the campus section of the article. The section, as it stands now, comes across as a flagrant instance of boosterism and needs to be cut back seriously. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
The gallery photos could use captions. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraternities or sororities
Do we have any more recent figures on fraternities or sororities participation? 1,080 participants divided by 4,478 undergraduates = 24.1%, but these are 2007-2008 data, not 2008-2009. The article says 'about 1/5" not "about 1/4". Enrollment for 2008-09 was 4,561.  Greek participation is listed as 806 in the Fall 2008  = 17.6% How do you explain this? Should we use 17.6%? Racepacket (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This is a riduclously POV article. JHU's okay on the paper rankings, but it's not worthy of such unbalanced and effusive praise. It sounds like the marketing monkeys at Garland Hall wrote it (and I bet they did). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.154 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate and cite instances of said unsubstantiated content within the article? Though as far as I have seen what you're implying can be considered a failing of all such university articles on wikipedia.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering Engineering and Applied Science Programs for Professionals has been nominated for deletion. Please comment on the discussion here. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)