Talk:Johns Hopkins University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you attend or have attended the Johns Hopkins University, you can add this template to your userpage:
{{User JHU}}
to display this userbox on your userpage:
JHU This user attends or attended The Johns Hopkins University

This will also add you to the category:
Wikipedians by alma mater: Johns Hopkins University

Re-Edited and Re-Structured Article[edit]

It took a while but I have completely revised and restructured the whole article to make it NPOV, more cogent in the expression of its content and a tad more aesthetically pleasing.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Re-written History section to remove cruft and make it more comprehensive and NPOV.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Added portraits and two more sections - History of Civil and Women Rights at JHU.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Forbes Rankings[edit]

If it is NPOV, then why are you deleting the Forbes ranking? Forbes ranking is properly sourced and the top schools on that list all use it on their wiki page. If it is NPOV, then include that in the article to show both side of the story. Baboo (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is because Forbes' rankings are universally acknowledged as being methodologically flawed, relying heavily upon subjective (not NPOV) or unverifiable data from non-probablistic sampling among a population which may not even consist entirely of enrolled students. For example, 25% of each institution's score is based upon anonymous ratings left on, another quarter of the ranking is based on postgraduate success as determined by entries in Who’s Who in America and by an online salary survey on based on self-reported data by a self-selected group of alums, so not only is it not a scientific sample with no effort being made to verify possibly inflated salary claims, the data also takes into account only alums with terminal bachelor's degrees, so schools where a high percentage of graduates go on to graduate and professional programs will effectively be penalized by having many of its highest-earning alums pushed out of the data. Other rankings are more rigourous and structured in their methodology of assessing the "academic" quality of an institution which is the inherent purpose of the "academic rankings" section of a wikipedia university article. There was discussion on the Cornell University talk page about this as well where concensus was reached on the non-inclusion of the Forbes rankings.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You are just butt hurt because Forbes did not rank this school as highly as us world and news report college rankings. The inclusion of Forbes ranking is in no way defining how good the school actually is, just like including us world and news report college rankings as all rankings are controversial. All rankings are subjective as no institution will appear at the same spot on one ranking list as on another ranking list. Inclusion of Forbes ranking is merely reporting an article form a large publication which will affect quite a lot of people. The goal of wikipedia is not truth but verifiability as it is the core concept of wikipedia. What you did here is considered vandalism. The following wiki pages all included the Forbes ranking, would you like to vandalize them as well?

United States Military Academy, Princeton University, Williams College, Harvard University, Wellesley College, United States Air Force Academy, Amherst College Baboo (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt hurt? I will take your amusingly denigrative response as sign that any attempt to address the intellectual uncouthness of your comments will be a complete waste of my time. Have a nice day.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The ranking may be methodologically unsound in your view, but almost all university rankings are scientifically unsound. US News regularly changes its methods of weighting to ensure "stability: of rankings, in just one example. Nevertheless, having cleared the bar of notability, the Forbes ranking should remain in the article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not merely in my view that the rankings are methodologically unsound (as I aptly displayed in my earlier reply) - it is a blatant fact, they are considered highly controversial, moreso than other rankings [1]. As such notability is disputed. Also, if a ranking is to be included within the Academic section of a wikipedia university article, it should of necessity measure the rigor and quality of academia and research of an institute of learning and the Forbes ranking system is blatantly bereft of that focus. Furthermore, there is no strict mandate to include all available rankings in a university page regardless of their acclaim. Thus, I oppose the inclusion of said rankings. This issue was also discussed on the Cornell University talk page with a similar concensus as the outcome.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
US News predominantly weights its rankings based upon surveys sent to senior administrators asking them about the reputation of the institution, THES weights 50% based on surveys as well, Washington Monthly uses non-academic related outcomes, etc. and I see no hand=wringing over the lack oof direct measures of "the rigor and quality of academia and research of an institute" which you assert is so necessary. I assume you're willing to remove these then? If you want rankings in the article, you're going to have to admit that all rankings are of dubious methodological quality and accept that your particular favored institution is not going to be ranked among the top X as well. Ultimately I believe the question of whether or not to include Forbes should be decided by the community of university editors, not on an ad hoc basis with every individual article. Let's take the discussion to WT:UNI and continue it there. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No analytical methodology is without flaw, nevertheless some are more flawed than others; the Forbes system would almost certainly receive a failing grade in any decent first-year graduate research design course. I agree with your suggestion to take this discussion to a more general forum for community consensus. For what its worth, I would rather do away with a rankings section entirely. See you at WT:UNI.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we honestly going to put Forbes rankings out here? Hopkins dropped like 70 places to like 140-150 this year. How much credibility can you put on a ranking that allows a school to fluctuate +/- 75 position slots per year. Forbes even wrote an article back in 1999 on how flawed the "Who's who in America' list is... Now they are using it as a part of their core methology for the Forbes ranking. LOLPhead128 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of degrees[edit]

an article on a federal judge has him receiving a b.e.s. from the hop in '58, but it is a red link. i think a section listing all the degrees the university confers would be a worthwhile addition to this and all articles on universities.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Homewood Campus[edit]

Thoughts on giving Homewood Campus its own article? It's pretty long right now, and mostly focuses on more recent campus history. Tanman (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It has its own article and I have shifted material between the main JHU article and the Homewood article. I have also renamed the Homewood article. See below. Racepacket (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuition in introduction?[edit]

Why is the tuition in the introduction? It's not like there's anything notable about the tuition at Hopkins, it's pretty much the same tuition that all of its peer schools charge. Furthermore, most schools don't list the tuition in the introduction because private schools in the US more or less have identical sticker prices. The real differences in cost come from differences in financial aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I removed it per WP:UNI guidelines. It is not very relevant, since few people actually pay full tuition without any financial aid. Racepacket (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopkins Interactive[edit]

Hello all,

The undergraduate admissions office has a project called "Hopkins Interactive" where we show off various aspects of Undergraduate life at Hopkins through videos, blogs, photos, etc. In an effort to get the word out about Hopkins Interactive, we have several proposed improvements to the Wikipedia article where people can go to find more info on Hopkins. Some proposed additions:

Add to “External Links” section:

Johns Hopkins University Office of Undergraduate Admissions

Hopkins Interactive

Under “Academics > Undergraduate Admissions” –

Daniel Creasy, Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions, and Senior Assistant Director Shannon Miller collaborate on an official Admissions blog, the Hopkins Insider ( This blog offers weekly posts containing admissions advice and an inside look into the admissions selection process.

Under “Student Life” –

The Student Admissions Advisory Board, a division of Undergraduate Admissions comprised of approximately 20 current students, has the task of bringing the essence of Hopkins student life to prospective, admitted, and future students of the University. The group maintains the Hopkins Interactive ( website, a hub directing visitors to a collection of student-composed weblogs, student-produced videos, Facebook page, Twitter feeds, official message boards, and more.

Under "Housing"- Learn more about housing at Hopkins by reading the student blog entries and special online video dorm tours through the special Hopkins Cribs ( section of Hopkins Interactive (

Are any of these changes possible? When I made them, they were removed due to resembling an "admissions brochure". All these changes are meant to be is a resource for people to learn more about undergrad life at Hopkins, not to be an admissions advertisement.


Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ginsberg (talkcontribs) 22:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking here, Nick!
As my previous edits show, I am categorically opposed to all of these edits. This is an encyclopedia article and not an admissions brochure. If any of those websites or resources are notable enough to have been covered by other publications then they might be something we'd want to include in this encyclopedia article. But Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote this institution and its recruitment efforts. ElKevbo (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that its an encyclopedia article not an admissions brochure, providing these links and adding this information can give users more information about the university...something they are obviously interested in since they are, after all, looking at the Wikipedia page, especially under the admissions section. By leaving this information out, we are depriving Wikipedia users of a great resource that they may otherwise not find. Anybody who is reading the sections we propose edits to is clearly interested in learning more about either undergrad life at Hopkins or the admissions process, and thus should have easy access to another resource where they can learn more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ginsberg (talkcontribs) 02:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I adamantly disagree and I recommend you review our policies regarding external links and what Wikipedia is not (particularly, Wikipedia is not a directory of links).
Why don't we sit back for a bit and see what other editors have to say? ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the External links section, it says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I believe that there is a way to find a "happy medium" here, where we can both be satisfied instead of just removing everything. Since Hopkins Interactive is a link which contains further accurate and on-topic research, it could come to be quite useful. Rather than simply removing everything, I'd like to try to find a way where the information can be added without violating Wikipedia's policy, and would be happy to work with you in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ginsberg (talkcontribs) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I really appreciate your patience and diplomacy but I'm not particularly inclined to compromise on this issue. I view this - the addition of information blatantly intended to recruit applicants - as a dangerous slippery slope that perverts the intent of this encyclopedia.
I really do think it's best to wait to see what others think because I know my position is an extreme one and there is a chance that others may be more moderate. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, for the most part those would be horrible additions. Blatant spam. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. This is an encyclopedia article, not a feeder site to drive traffic for admissions. If Johns Hopkins wants to link to this "accurate, useful, and on-topic research" from their homepage, that's their prerogative. Ours is to link to the official homepage and webpages that contain encyclopedically relevant reliable sources such as institutional research statistics. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
After waiting several days and hearing no further objections, I went ahead and modified the original post as to come off as less-advertisement like. The links were added to the reference section, rather than the body of the article, and anything appearing to be an "advertisement" was changed. It became relevant information, i.e. if someone is reading about housing at Hopkins, it would most certainly be useful for them to be informed that there is a student run project based around housing and showing what housing is like, something the Wikipedia visitor is clearly interested in since they are reading the page about housing. The same goes for the Admissions section, where it is potentially valuable information to know that the admissions office runs a blog. The same logic applies to the Student Life section. Thus, this is not an advertisement--it is a source of additional resources, which the Wikipedia user could potentially be very interested in. By censusing it, you are inhibiting the ease at which they can access information, which seems highly against the purpose of Wikipedia. I also requested that rather than simply say something along the lines of "Reverted, its not an advertisement", you offer constructive criticism so we can reach a point where we all agree--something which nobody, to this point, has done. It should also be noted that I am a student here at Hopkins, not an admissions officer, and can assure you that from a students prospective this information is not promotional material but rather, as stated earlier, helpful informational material. Finally, ElKevbo stated earlier "If any of those websites or resources are notable enough to have been covered by other publications then they might be something we'd want to include in this encyclopedia article." Well, here you go:
(a.) - JHU Gazette, January 30, 2006
(b.) - Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2007
(c.) - Yale Daily Press, March 9, 2007
(d.) - JHU Gazette, Feb. 23, 2009
(e.) - Baltimore Sun, Sept. 30, 2009
(f.) - My College Guide, June 30, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.ginsberg (talkcontribs) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. A brief, one-sentence mention of the institution's social media efforts would be alright given the references but this is still too much like advertising for my taste. ElKevbo (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, would you care to help work to come up with some form of appropriate way to put this up instead of arguing? It seems as though with all the bickering that has been going on we could have solved this problem several times over by now if I were offered actual constructive criticism instead of just being constantly told about how I'm apparently spamming. Also, note, that all of the most recent edits convey FACTS about the university, and things the university does, which are portrayed from a neutral standpoint (stating the fact that Hopkins students do make videos about their dorms is a FACT, it is also relevant to the topic of housing, and the other edits also take neutral stances in conveying facts). I really don't want to edit war here--after all, I did wait several days for any response here before making the edits again. You all asked for justification in my edits, I gave it, and as of now I'm yet to see anybody say anything besides "its spam", when, as stated earlier, it is not spam, it is neutral information on topics both relevant to sections of this article and of potential importance to the Wikipedia user. So please, instead of just constantly saying the same thing over, give constructive criticism and help find some solution to make everyone happy.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the external link to should be sufficient for any Wikipedia user. Please review the page WP:RS. Racepacket (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I also question the assertion of this being "of potential importance to the Wikipedia user." Of all of the problems facing Johns Hopkins today, whether an Admissions Officer has a blog is very low on the list. Racepacket (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't need it to be an external link, I'd be OK with just leaving any links to the website as a citation. Also, how would it not be of imprtance? Take the housing example. If someone is reading the Wiki section on housing, it probably means they have some intrest in housing and thus they may want to learn more about it by going to some external source. The same applies for admissions--if someone is reading about admissions, they clearly have some sort of interest in finding out more about it.
I'm also curious as to what problems the university is facing...can you clarify on that?Nick.ginsberg (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Many, on the JHHS side, changes in health care policy and Maryland state budget problems will put large financial pressures on medical reimbursements. JHU's endowment has suffered since 2008, the giving environment is more challenging, student expectations regarding physical plant and housing continues to rise, financial aid funding must increase to stay competitive with peer institutions, the average faculty age is growing older, town-gown tensions, just to name a few off the top of my head. Racepacket (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I fail to see how any of those problems are relevant to why there shouldn't be a sentence on the Wikipedia page regarding blogs run by the undergraduate admissions office, or why there shouldn't be a sentence about how Hopkins students make videos about their dorm rooms in the housing section.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. I can see having just one or two sentences about JHU's distance learning and interactive media efforts somewhere in the Academics section, but I don't understand why one blog should be singled out beyond all of the other distance learning and interactive media done at the University. Has the blog received some national award? Wikipedia continually confronts a problem with editors lacking perspective. Some people believe that their activity or organization or project is the most important. But the goal of Wikipedia is to provide an objective, balanced account, not an account that is skewed toward the interests of people in proportion to the amount that each contributes. That is what makes Wikipedia different from Facebook. Racepacket (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Finally...some progress. If you would like to assist me in coming up with some way to make it so this blog doesn't seem singled out or like an advertisement I would be more than open to suggestions, seeing as you all clearly know far more about what is acceptable than I do. Please help in making it objective and balanced, so we can all continue with our lives.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on your request, I have reviewed the "crib" page and various videos. I can't see any way that this would be includable. Students have been taking pictures and home movies of their dorms for decades. It is widespread and commonplace. It's connection to JHU is tenuous at best. Sorry. Racepacket (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So based on your logic, if students have been doing it for a long time, and it occurs elsewhere, it shouldn't be included? Well, I guess we should delete the lacrosse section, because students have been playing lacrosse for decades and the sport is pretty widespread and commonplace. I also fail to see how videos about housing at Hopkins have a tenuous connection to...well...a section about housing at Hopkins. Nick.ginsberg (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My logic is that students have been taking photos and home movies of dormitories for years, so the fact that JHU has decided to archive them is not noteworthy. I also find that such materials are not reliable sources about those facilities. If the Baltimore Sun ran an in depth article about JHU's housing, we would certainly want to include a reference to that. I think that because JHU has been national champion in lacrosse, it is proper to include it in both the JHU main article and in an article about JHU athletics. But I would remove any citations to student home movies of lacrosse games or the lacrosse facilities from that discussion. In a way, this is doing both JHU and Wikipedia readers a big favor. Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to sit through home movies to get information, and JHU's reputation should not be dependent on the immature judgments of an unduly narcissistic undergraduate. Racepacket (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not insult me personally, attack my arguments, not my being. Please see personal attack policy. They do not have to sit through the videos, by any means, visiting them would be done entirely of their own free will. I also think that JHU's effort to document them is noteworthy in and of itself. It is a fairly new concept, and, seeing as these are uncensored looks into the dorms (i.e. the university itself does not have sway in what is shown), thus they do provide a reliable source. I don't see why it would matter whether or not the Baltimore sun has published an article about housing, the fact of the matter is that this resource exists and it should be known that it exists. So back to this whole lacrosse thing. Hopkins has national lacrosse championships, and thus should be included in the section on athletics. Makes sense. Hopkins also has videos of dorms--and thus should be mentioned in the dorms section.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Simply existing is not sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I think that based on the third-party references you provided it's worth mentioning these materials but I still don't think they meet the threshold for inclusion in the External links section. I also think that you may be too close to this topic to have a really good, neutral viewpoint. There are a handful of articles I don't edit regularly myself for the same reason.

If the lacrosse (or any other) teams have won national championships then that indeed should be mentioned in the Athletics section. Unless there is a specific history of domination, scandal, or other noteworthy events and historical reputation then details should be left for another article. But it should certainly be mentioned. ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that I probably do not hold the best good, neutral viewpoint. That is why I've requested help in coming up with a way that it will not come off as too biased, and have asked for the aid of all you, who clearly have vastly more editing experience than I, in coming up with a way to make it neutral. Do you think another, separate article would be appropriate? I'm not sure, hence I'm deferring what is appropriate to you, but I would like to come to some form of general consensus. If you don't find it appropriate to put in the external links, that is fine, I'm OK with that. But, how can we express this in a neutral way that will satisfy everyone? Nick.ginsberg (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Less is always better. The article has become too large. Something needs to go. The average Wikipedia reader spends one minute reading a page. They might finish the lead in that amount of time. This is not a almanac or a .com page. Eliminate and fork.
Also, I almost expect extravagant adjectives and data for tiny colleges. One does not expect this from a Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or... Johns Hopkins! Like the Lady doth protest too much. It looks funny. Why is JH resorting to extravagant language when understated is received a lot better by the type of audience that reads this? JH can "afford to be humble." Tiny colleges, alas, think they have to "try harder" I suppose. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL makes it clear that external links should be kept to a minimum. It's hard to see how this one would be a priority over other possibilities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, if you all don't think it appropriate to put in the external links, that is totally fine. Also, Student7, could you clarify your post, please? Do you want the language to be simplified? I'm not quite sure what you meant.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks, nor was any intended. I assume that Nick.ginsberg is a staff member and not an undergraduate making one of the home movies which I was asked to view. I agree with the others that an external link to the Johns Hopkins main website should be sufficient, and that an external link to the Hopkins Interactive subsite would be inappropriate as it is intended as a "recruitment tool." As indicated above, undergraduates taking photos of their living quarters are more than a century old, and home movies goes back for decades. There is nothing new notable here. Racepacket (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't see what "newness" has to do with this discussion. Can you please clarify and help me understand? ElKevbo (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as I am not a staff member of the admissions office, and am, in fact, an undergraduate, the words "immature judgments of an unduly narcissistic undergraduate" seemed to come off an awful lot like a personal attack. I apologize for any ambiguity in regards to my relationship to either Hopkins or the admissions office. Please do not refer to them as "home movies", as we have recently started an upgrade project hand in hand with the A/V people to make these professionally edited as well as in high definition (however, the whole project is still student run, film and media studies students will be doing the filming and editing, etc.). Finally, can we move away from the external links discussion and begin focusing on content, I've said several times that the external link does not matter and that I understand it would be inappropriate to put there.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1) The fundamental problem is one of credibility. If the Baltimore Sun hires a trained journalist to write about the dorms, the result has inherent credibility. There are millions of photos of dorm rooms out there as well as a large number of home movies. (They are home movies in terms of their content and prespective irrespective of the resolution of the images.) You are asking me to vouch for the objectivity and focus of your website. At your request, I took the time to review the website, and it clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards for being a reliable source. A Wikipedia user would be better off visiting the campus himself or reading about it from some other reliable source. This is exactly the same policy that governs the lacrosse team. We limit our coverage to facts contained in reliable sources and only give references to reliable sources. Under that same policy, we do not give references to undergraduate home movies of lacrosse games. 2) Has JHU conducted any scholarly studies on the impact of Hopkins Interactive on freshman decisions to attend JHU? If so, please post the references here, and we can consider whether to include a discussion of those studies in the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I find your logic to be severely flawed. The videos featured are of every dorm on campus (aka university housing). We did not only feature the "nicer" or more desirable dorms, they are all there. Furthermore, there are a variety of different rooms featured for each of the dorms, so viewers can see a variety of rooms from a variety of dorms. I fail to see how this would not be a credible source. They are our dorms, being filmed, with a wide variety of different rooms and buildings being featured. If anything, that gives it inherent credibility. If the Baltimore Sun were to do an article on dorms at Hopkins, I'd think it would almost be less credible because of the limited amount of space they would be able to give to each housing option, resulting in a bias in terms of lack of information. Not all people can physically visit the campus, and I don't see where else this information would be published if not by Hopkins. And no, as of now there has not been any study as to the impact of Hopkins Interactive, but I do not see why that matters as we know the website generates thousands of hits. The fact that it exists is reason for it to get at least a small reference. Nick.ginsberg (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Google. We don't list every website with info about dorms, nor do we list every realtor with info about Baltimore rentals. Wikipedia is about credibility and selectivity. I think this conversation has gone as far as it can. You appear to come from a perspective of wanting to sell prospective students on dorm housing. I am coming from the perspective of an encyclopedia (with most of its users being uninterested in picking a JHU dorm room) that is based on reliable sources. At least five experienced editors have politely told you "no" and have reverted your edits. Put simply, what you are trying to do does not belong in Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You say you don't list every website with info about dorms, I'm curious, however, as to how many websites you think exist on the topic? Surely there are far more realtors in Baltimore than there are websites with in depth info on Hopkins dorms. Now, I pose this question to you. Why have a section on housing in the article? Who cares? Realistically, the only people that would really care to read the section on housing are those who are potentially going to live there or know people who will be. The amazing thing to me is that the housing section even says, right on top, that it lacks citations and sources. I'm assuming, due to the fact that you changed the subject completely, that you agree that this is a credible source for housing? Then why not use it to the advantage of Wikipedia and use it as a source for the housing section? Would you rather that entire section go completely unreferenced, when a clearly credible source for that information exists? There is no doubt in my mind that that DOES belong in Wikipedia.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The answers to your questions are that a Google search on "Johns Hopkins dorms" finds 158,000 hits, and that a group of editors from many different colleges developed a set of article guidelines which includes some coverage of housing. Suppose you were working as a reference librarian at the Library of Congress and you get a call asking you for a 10 page summary of JHU to be used by Congress. What would you include, not knowing what legisation the requestor was considering? I can see you including a statement that 63% of undergraduates live on campus, but leaving out photographs and home movies of each dorm. I read a lot of college articles on Wikipedia year round, and our traffic does not depend on just prospective students. Wikipedia can be a quick start for serious research as well as meeting the needs of prospective students, faculty and staff. Please read WP:RS and you will see that blogs are not reliable or credible sources. Hopkins Interactive is a set of blogs with a lot of video content and some discussion boards. In contrast, a reliable source would be an article from the Baltimore Sun. Please understand that Wikipedia is showing JHU from the viewpoint of a plane flying at 10,000 feet. You are trying to show JHUs dorms at the weed level. Wikipedia is not designed to discuss the merits of each dorm. In fact, a group of University of Chicago students wrote separate articles on each of their dorms, including their history, architecture and special programming. Wikipedia deleted all except those that were about historic landmarks. Racepacket (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Google may return 158,000 hits, but realistically, how many are relevant? Google returns 353,000 for my name...only about 10-15 actually have to do with me. Of those, hardly any go beyond simply a mention of my name. So, thus, the number of hits on Google is by no means a way of judging the popularity of something online. Also, it is important to note that the cribs section is separate from the blogs section. Just because a website has blogs on it doesn't mean it is solely dedicated to blogs. Google employees blog about company happenings, for example, but that does not mean that information coming from Google (the actual website, not the search function) is void from being referenced because there is a blogging section. Also, I'd like to see how the Baltimore Sun would be a more reliable source, as you completely neglected rebutting my argument about why Hopkins Cribs would in many senses be more credible due to the fact that we can dedicate an unlimited amount of space to feature several rooms from all the buildings (as opposed to a newspaper article, where space is short and a lot must be left out). Adding on to that, what difference does it make if a reporter takes a picture or a student takes the same picture? It is of the same thing. Now, consider this. What if it was moved to the student's publications part? It is, in many ways, a student publication. Would that be more acceptable? Finally, when it comes to showing Wikipedia at 10,000 feet, what would be changed? All it would be is a reference and a sentence for those who DO want to see things at weed level. It is clear that everyone reads the article for a different reason, but realistically the ones who read the housing section might be very interested in looking at things at weed level. The proposed additions are also not discussing the merits of each dorm. They are to show a reference which, if interested, readers can go to find the merits of each dorm. The actual content regarding dorm specifics is not going on Wikipedia, and thus the article will stay at 10,000 feet but will provide a parachute for those who want to come get a weed level look.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Any objections?Nick.ginsberg (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you reread the above discussion, you will see a number of objections that were explained to you at great length. Racepacket (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but all those objections have been countered by my arguments as to why it should be included.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that you don't understand what we have taken the time to explain to you, and that at least I do not find your arguments convincing. Perhaps you are not being objective. Why should wikipedia treat Nick Ginsberg differently than it treats the hundreds of realtors who would like Wikipedia to plug their websites that also feature videos? Why should wikipedia treat Nick Ginsberg differently than it treats the fans who take home movies of the JHU lacrosse games? You try to argue that you are special, but everyone feels that they are special. You are a great student attending a great university who has better things to do with his valuable undergraduate years than to bang his head on the wall of Wikipedia policy. If you want to become a Wikipedia editor, we will mentor you, but if you want to find a cure for cancer, spend your spare time at the Biology Department. Doesn't it bother you that of all the millions of undergraduates who have attending college since the motion picture was invented you are the only one to want to devote his life to the filming of dorm rooms? Everyone else found better ways to spend their college years. Again, I admire your many qualities, but please think about what you are doing here. Racepacket (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not about the dorm rooms. Its about information--is that not why Wikipedia was made? What makes this vastly different from realtors trying to plug their websites is that A. This is more than just videos, "home movies" as you like to call them, it is a student organization designed to bring information to the public and B. I don't get paid. This is a student project, being a part of Hopkins Interactive does not entail making money, as realtors promoting their sites are out to do. Also, why do you think my life is devoted to filming dorm rooms? That is quite the assumption--seeing as I personally have not filmed a single frame and have not been in any films. Again, this is a student organization, like the school newspaper, but geared towards outsiders. I don't see why everyone is out to find ways to limit information--if anything, you all should be finding reasons why to include more information in an acceptable manner. That is all I've wanted this whole time--a way to please everyone. Nick.ginsberg (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you can convince the Baltimore Sun to write an in-depth story about your organization, then come back with a citation to that story. Racepacket (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
See the above links for several stories regarding our organization, including one from "My College Guide" which deals specifically and in depth with the student aspect.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Then those are the sources you summarize and cite. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Would this, then, be more acceptable, with the article by "My College Guide" as a ref and to be put in a section deemed appropriate?
"In 2005, a project known as "Hopkins Interactive" launched with the goal of providing direct, uncensored interaction with current students. The website is maintained by a group of volunteers, the Student Admissions Advisory Board, who apply usually in the summer before their freshman year. In addition to blogs, the group maintains several other social media tools, including forums, Facebook groups and Twitter pages."Nick.ginsberg (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that acceptable? I don't want to make the edits just to have them reverted. As far as I can see, it meets all the requirements. It comes as a neutral view, with 3rd party references, no new information (everything written can be found in the referenced article), and does not come off as an advertisement (in my opinion). The info is also accurate and relevant. Is this better?Nick.ginsberg (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit long but definitely on the right track. It should be shortened and changed to active voice. ElKevbo (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The reference is a blog and not a reliable source. Racepacket (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
How about this?
A group of student volunteers maintains the "Hopkins Interactive" project, with the goal of providing direct, uncensored interaction with current students. In addition to blogs, the group utilizes several other social media tools, including forums, Facebook groups and Twitter pages.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What would you put between the <ref> tags to support your proposal? Racepacket (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, how about "Hopkins Interactive is a student-run website for prospective students." Racepacket (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a little too vague, and really doesn't provide much information. I don't see much harm in making it two relatively short but informative sentences. Nick.ginsberg (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I was just proposing something that would be parallel with the other mention of student media in the article. How is your other Wikipedia editing progressing? Racepacket (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What other mentions of student media are you trying to parallel? The only other student media mentions I see are with the student newspaper and the Black and Blue Jay, which both get reasonably long paragraphs. Considering that this is a student publication, I do not see why two sentences on it would be inappropriate.Nick.ginsberg (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Please read the paragraph that begins, "Hopkins has many publications that are produced entirely by students." If Hopkins Interactive has received a national award, we can add a second sentence. Given the other problems with the article, I don't think that the omission of Hopkins Interactive is its top problem. Racepacket (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
What about "'Hopkins Interactive' is a student-run project with the goal of providing a link between current Hopkins students and prospective students through blogs and other social media."
P.S. Sorry for the delay, last week was finals week and I've been busy between finals and traveling home24.44.58.208 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyone?Nick.ginsberg (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


The article is rapidly approaching 100K. I suggest that we spin off as a separate article Johns Hopkins University Homewood campus and leave just a brief summary in the main article. I would then change ==Campuses and Divisions== to just ==Campuses== and move the division descriptions into ==Organization==. Any thoughts? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Hearing no objections, I have move the campus description to Johns Hopkins University Homewood campus and merged it with the existing Homewood campus article. Racepacket (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Brothel law?[edit]

The fraternity and sorority section really needs a lot of work and references. If there are no sources for the claim that a brothel law exists, why is it in the article? Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Given the Baltimore sorority zoning law, I am deleting this. Publications fall for urban legends all the time, and it is not worth including in Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Research and better sources[edit]

I revised the research section. As noted by User:Student7 the article has a lot of boosterism, and in the research section, it repeatedly cited to a JHU press release about an NSF study, instead of the NSF report itself. We need to get more non-JHU sources into the article and to avoid false statements. For example, the press release said the JHU was the only school to top $1 billion, when the NSF reports that U of Michigan was at $1.007 billion. The JHU totals used for comparison are inflated by $845 million in Applied Physics Lab grants. Many other colleges have spun out such off campus facilities, and they are reported separately by other schools.

I my view, the entire article needs a careful rewrite. Racepacket (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that, even without the APL included, I'm pretty sure that JHU would still be top 10 or top 5, which is still pretty good.

Moreover, I think that there is a distinct lack of information on the relationship between the APL and JHU. The APL is mostly a military research facility. It also does engineering on several NASA satellites. I think that it's considered a part of JHU, rather than an affiliate, because the APL teaches Engineering For Professionals classes which are mostly aimed at APL employees. It also runs special research programs for JHU students and has preferential hiring. So there is a real, non-trivial association, but I think that counting APL research as JHU research is a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NSF added JHU APL to JHU's total, not JHU herself. Get your facts straight, because your accusation that JHU boosterism is characteristic of lack of knowledge about NSF decision and policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:JHU Campus Map.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:JHU Campus Map.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JHU Campus Map.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced article[edit]

Johns Hopkins University had a noble beginning, and does a great deal of good. However, their treatment of their support workers, their clinical trial subjects, and the residents of Baltimore's East Side has been highly problematic. These problems are well documented, and continue to have a major impact on life in Baltimore. I will look up more specifics, so as to put only well-documented information on the page, but you can start by looking here. I appreciate the work that has already been done to make this less of an advertisement, and simply want to call attention to important facts about the university. Groupuscule (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues you raise should be reflected in the article with appropriate references. Please see WP:Reliable_sources. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Per Jo3sampl, the issue you raise should be reflected in the article. You should use the appropriate [citation needed] or [unreliable source?] tags to address the issues you mention. Please see WP:TAGGING for advice on constructive tagging. --Apollo1758 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


Can someone please include a wikitable to show JHU's past USNWR National University rankings for the previous ten years, as a reference that it's a consistently considered a top tier school? I would do it myself if I could find previous rankings. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillerrs (talkcontribs) 15:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It would also help prospective students in their college search too, I'm sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillerrs (talkcontribs) 15:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Frederick Scott Linked[edit]

Under the Civil Rights section, the article says that Frederick Scott was the first African-American undergraduate. Frederick Scott is linked to a different Frederick Scott--a British inventor. I didn't want to delete the link in case there was an existing page for the correct Frederick Scott (I couldn't find one) and the link needed to be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Stats in infobox - Something's not right[edit]

The number of graduate students listed in the infobox changed substantially on November 17, 2012. I'm wondering if anyone knows why there is/was such a discrepancy. I'm guessing the distinction is the difference between full-time and part-time graduate students.

According to the Johns Hopkins "facts" page, there are 1,981 graduate students at the university.[2] Meanwhile, the Engineering for Professionals program — a purely graduate program at Johns Hopkins — claims to educate "more than 2,000 students ... each year" alone.[3] According to U.S. News & World Report, the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering has 1,158 full-time graduate students and 2,276 part-time graduate students.[4] The full-time number alone would mean that most Johns Hopkins graduate students are engineering school students (1,158 out of 1,981). This seems odd for a university mostly known for its medical programs.

U.S. News claims there are 479 medical school students.[5] The school of education supposedly has 289 full-time and 1,115 part-time graduate students.[6] Meanwhile, the School of Advanced International Studies, which I believe is purely a graduate school, claims to have 1,020 students.[7] There are other graduate schools at Johns Hopkins that I haven't even mentioned.

I'll also point out that the number of academic (3,100) and administrative (15,000) staff listed in the infobox dwarfs the number of students. This doesn't pass the sniff test. --JHP (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this but I suggest first examining whether the counts are headcount or Full Time Equivalent (FTE) as that could explain much or all of the confusion if the different counts are using different metrics.
I am also unsurprised by a large discrepancy between the number of students and the number of faculty and staff at this particular institution given its focus on research and its large medical focus which both require a lot of staff. ElKevbo (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget APL, which (if it's anything like the other FFRDCs) is nearly all staff and few if any faculty or students. 121a0012 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
in that regard, apl is not like other ffdrc's. the entire engineering for professionals program is run at apl, and the claim of ~2,000 grad students is probably more or less correct. this is probably a factor of geography more than anything else, as howard county is more convenient to the large number of defence related workers in the d.c. area than is baltimore.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

On further consideration, the previous numbers were really "off" and didn't seem to line up with other reported numbers and facts. In fact, they were pretty far out of line with what the Department of Education reports so I've inserted those numbers instead. I'd be curious to find out why the university's website is reporting numbers that are wildly different from what they have reported to the federal government. I'm sure there is a good reason but it definitely demands explanation, an explanation that may not be sufficient for us or even applicable to this publication. ElKevbo (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Unfortunately, User:Mongo460 made this edit so the enrollment stats weren't supported by the reference. I have modified the stats so they are again supported by the Department of Education reference. The stats on the university's Hopkins by the Numbers web page are not internally consistent with the university's cumulative per school enrollment statistics. Here's a nice quote from the JHU website that can be used as a guide for the what the sum of the undergrad and postgrad numbers should be: "The Johns Hopkins University enrolls nearly 20,000 full-time and part-time students..."[8] --JHP (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

International campus[edit]

I've removed Perdana University from the list. JHU terminated the partnership citing frequent late payments as reason. [9] [10] [11] [12] Wasill37 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Put the status as '(Discontinued)' rather than removing it, since there was a partnership.Wasill37 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Johns Hopkins University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a read through this article and it piqued my interest about the history behind it. Since it's up for a GA review, I think I can cater for that.

Copyright problems[edit]

  • The copyright checker reports an 86% possibility of being a copy of this source. Unless you can prove that this is a public domain or otherwise suitable free licence, the article is at risk of being deleted due to copyright problems. Even if it were a free source, it is unlikely that the material can be directly copied and still fit Wikipedia's manual of style or generally accepted prose format.


  • I think the lead is a little too long for the article, which is only 31K of prose. You probably want to be looking at no more than three paragraphs.
  • "is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world" - I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of what the source actually says
  • The opening paragraph copies too much from the original source to the extent it should be considered a copyright violation.
  • The first sentence in the second paragraph is awkward. I would go with something like "The university was the first research-oriented one in the United States....." Also, the start of this sentence is not verified by the citation given (though since this the lead, this is less important than the body)
  • "Johns Hopkins is also ranked #12 in the U.S. News and World Report undergraduate program rankings for 2014" - this date has a citation error on it

Comments on the body will follow.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The philanthropist and the founding[edit]

  • "bequeathed $7 million" - the source given says $8 million
  • "(between $140 million to $1.6 billion in 2011 dollars, by varying estimates)" - I'd personally recommend using one of the {{inflation}} templates to give an accurate figure that will not go out of date
  • "The first name of philanthropist Johns Hopkins is the surname of his great-grandmother, Margaret Johns, who married Gerard Hopkins. They named their son Johns Hopkins, who named his own son Samuel Hopkins. Samuel named one of his sons after his father and that son would be the university's benefactor." - this information is not in the source at the end of the paragraph, and hence is not verifiable
  • The last paragraph in this section is unsourced

Early years and Daniel Coit Gilman[edit]

  • "and James B. Angell of Michigan" - I can't find a mention of this name in the source at the end of the paragraph
  • The rest of this section is unsourced

Move to Homewood and early 20th century history[edit]

  • I think you need a comma between "In the early 20th century" and "the university outgrew its buildings"
  • The vast majority of this section in unsourced

The post-war era[edit]

  • This section is unsourced

In the twenty-first century[edit]

  • "Notably, a planned 88-acre expansion to the medical campus is well underway as of 2013". The "notably" is redundant. Also, this sentence is out of date, presumably the extension to the medical campus has now been completed
  • "the reconstruction of the main university entrance is currently underway and expected to be completed by the end of 2014" - same problem, it is the end of 2014 now, so presumably a source giving an update is available?
  • "From 1999 until 2007, these disciplines had been joined together within the School of Professional Studies in Business and Education (SPSBE), itself a reshuffling of several earlier ventures." - I can't see this claim in the source given

Civil rights[edit]

African Americans[edit]

  • What makes a reliable source?
  • The end of the first paragraph is unsourced
  • The second half of the second paragraph is unsourced


  • "The trustees denied her (Christine Ladd-Franklin) the degree for decades and refused to change the policy about admitting women" - this doesn't seem grammatically correct.
  • "The decision to admit women at undergraduate level was not considered until the late 1960s and was eventually adopted in October 1969" - this claim should have an inline cite to the Hopkins magazine source, as per the claims earlier in this section



  • The second half of this section is unsourced
  • "Carroll's Homewood House is considered one of the finest examples of Federal residential architecture." this is POV and should be toned down

Downtown Baltimore[edit]

  • This section is unsourced


  • The second reference in this section is a dead link

Undergraduate admissions[edit]

  • The second half of this section is unsourced


  • As a general rule, external links should not appear in prose


  • The second half of the first paragraph is unsourced

Johns Hopkins University Press[edit]

  • The second half of this section is unsourced

Student life[edit]

  • What makes a reliable source? It is also tagged as a dead link
  • This section has several unsourced paragraphs


  • Most of this section is unsourced


  • I'm afraid I can't continue with the review further, as there are just too many problems with verifiability. The article looks reasonably complete, covering all areas of the university from its inception through to its faculties, student life and reputation, and seems to be a reasonable introduction to the place - but there are too many facts and figures in the article that can't be checked by a third party. And unfortunately, that's a showstopper for a GA. The copyright violations are also a cause for concern. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Johns Hopkins University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

School Colors[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the infobox note the fact that there are separate school colors for academia (particularly graduation regalia) and sports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Johns Hopkins University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)