` 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years prior, as usual) are ``entirely irrelevant.``  What was pointed out was that the 1995 NRC rankings, as thoroughly out of date  that is, they obviously do not capture, nor pretend to speak to, the present strengths of the institutions, sitting faculty, and so their graduate training 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.`