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  but at least one or two years prior as usual are entirely irrelevant  What was pointed out was that the  NRC rankings as thoroughly out of date  that is they obviously do not capture nor pretend to speak to the present strengths of the institutions sitting faculty and so their graduate training  is for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  or   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