Talk:RELX

Archives (Index)

2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Exhibitions renaming

Hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that Reed Exhibitions rebranded earlier this year and is now called RX. It would be great if that could be reflected on this page - it looks like it's already been done on the RX page itself. - Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated. Dormskirk (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested change

Hi, as well as the Reed Exhibitions > RX name change mentioned above, I'd like to flag a few other factual changes which should be updated on this article: 1. The Chair is now Paul Walker, 2. RELX is never written RElX and never has been, as claimed near the top - I have no idea where that came from! and 3. Under Governance, Adrian Hennah is no longer on the Board, but June Felix should be added. I'm happy to make these changes myself but suggesting them here first in case someone else wants to so we can avoid issues around WP:COI. Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

These changes seem to have been made. Dormskirk (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on the page

Seriously, why should anyone take Wikipedia content about companies seriously? There is masses of out of date information on the page - the chair changed two years ago; the financials haven't been updated for two years; in November 2022, a contributor decided unilaterally that the New York listing was an ADS (it isn't, it's an ADR); ScienceDirect contains 19m items, not 13m; Elsevier publishes 600,000 articles a year, not 430,000; it says in 2019 that the University of California terminated its Elsevier subscription, but not that they eventually signed up to a four year deal in 2021; there's a long section on the cost of knowledge boycott, signed by 20,500 people over a decade, yet references to the 2.5m article submissions received by Elsevier were deleted. The cumulative effect is a page that has no credibility. PS: In the interests of transparency, I work for RELX and can't edit the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.82.34 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest and posting on the talk page rather than making the edits. I will not feign surprise that the encyclopaedia relies on information that is 2 years old. If you share sources to support what you thinks need updating, others can use that to update the page. CT55555(talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have checked the financials in the infobox as that is an item that I usually taken an interest in and update. However, they are currently up to date i.e. the most recent annual results are those for the year ended 31 December 2021. The company is not due to release its results for the year ended 31 December 2022 until 16 February 2023 i.e. tomorrow. I would be very happy to update the financials as soon the company issues the results. So, on that matter please direct any criticisms to the company, although in fairness, I think the company is to be complemented on issuing their results within 50 days of the year-end. So please don't be so harsh on them! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now updated the financials in the infobox and taken the opportunity to make most of the other changes you suggested. For future updates, as requested above, please share sources to support what you think needs updating, so others can use that to update the page. Also, if you are now the company's representative, please can the company reflect on its tone? We are all volunteers here and the wikipedia community do not charge for content in the way that the company does. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible page updates

Hi - There have been a few pieces of coverage about RELX in the UK media this year, so I was wondering if it might be possible to get some of this content added/updated on the page accordingly? Thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

1. The group is Britain’s largest telecommunications, media and technology group. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-03/ftse-100-s-40th-birthday-is-a-very-british-disappointment

2. RELX is one of the top 10 companies in the FTSE100, by market cap. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well

3. RELX employs 1,000 technologists and spends roughly £1.3bn a year on IT. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/09/ftse100-ruder-health-doomsters-predictions/

4. In 2023, Bank of America Corp. named Relx as one of the top 20 global companies likely to benefit from generative AI. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well

5. RELX’s biggest business is Risk, which uses artificial intelligence to help banks, insurers and airlines tackle issues such as fraud, cybercrime and corruption. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well

6. The company’s LexisNexis legal and news database contains 144 billion documents and records. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well

7. Elsevier publishes more than 2,800 journals, including The Lancet, and 600,000 academic articles a year. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well

Ryoba - Much of this looks promotional. Please see the section above entitled "Inaccuracies on the page". Is there anything actually inaccurate or out of date about the page as currently drafted? If so please focus on that and provide proposed changes. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for updating with the 2023 numbers (and for all of your other work on this page!) - I think that all looks accurate. Regarding the suggestions above though, they're all sourced to reputable organisations and accurately reflect the business' position and scale. This seems to be fairly standard across Wikipedia? For example, Amazon's page says "As of 2023, it is the world's largest online retailer and marketplace, smart speaker provider, cloud computing service through AWS, live-streaming service through Twitch, and Internet company as measured by revenue and market share. In 2021, it surpassed Walmart as the world's largest retailer outside of China, driven in large part by its paid subscription plan, Amazon Prime, which has close to 200 million subscribers worldwide. It is the second-largest private employer in the United States. As of October 2023, Amazon is the 12th-most visited website in the world and 82% of its traffic comes from the United States." - I'm not sure how the suggestions above are any more promotional than that? Ryoba (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi - I appreciate your point. In my view, the statements you have identified in the Amazon article are quite promotional! I will let other editors comment. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue I think. From my perspective, there seems to be an asymmetry in that negative items from news sources about companies are often accepted for inclusion on Wikipedia, but that more positive items from equally reputable sources are viewed as "promotional". The result can be that the article risks not accurately reflecting the organisation and its behaviours. Am I missing something? Francophile9 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The articles are all opinion pieces or comments, please find general sources that mention what you would like included. IgelRM (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a rule that opinion pieces aren't valid sources? i would have thought The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Bloomberg and Financial Times are pretty reputable.

1. The Guardian reported in 2024 that RELX was rare in that it was already commercialising artificial intelligence in its products. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/02/footsie-40-ftse-100-index-tech-stocks
2. RELX employs 1,000 technologists and spends roughly £1.3bn a year on IT. It is one of the first companies in the world to have commercialised generative artificial intelligence and has been using machine learning and natural language processing for over a decade. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/09/ftse100-ruder-health-doomsters-predictions/
3. RELX is a poster child for digital transformation: In the 14 years since Erik Engstrom became chief executive officer in November 2009, the company has transformed itself from an unremarkable publisher of trade and academic journals into a data and analytics powerhouse. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well
4. Relx has been using extractive AI for about a decade and is moving into generative AI — the type that can create new content out of the data it’s been trained on. In 2023, Bank of America Corp. named Relx as one of the top 20 global companies likely to benefit from generative AI. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/elsevier-owner-relx-played-performance-long-game-well
5. Relx is using machine learning and artificial intelligence based on its vast data sets, with three generative AI products so far: Lexis+ AI, which can help lawyers draft and analyse documents; Scopus AI, an academic search tool; and Clinical Key AI, which provide medical information. https://www.ft.com/content/40a83987-03d3-4cb6-a2cf-fac129cf8876

Francophile9 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are generally not fitting sources for an encyclopedia, see WP:PSTS. I think you want to add a paragraph about AI use, although even the FT article is going by the headline about its chief? For further questions, I recommend checking out WP:Teahouse. Regards IgelRM (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So to be consistent, will you be removing the reference to the opinion article in the Guardian article about fossil fuels, and the random blog site? Francophile9 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Or not? You don't think there might be double standards going on here, IgelRM? Francophile9 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, IGelRM, you are suggesting that The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Bloomberg and the Financial Times aren't fitting sources for an encyclopaedia but a random website is acceptable: https://www.climaterightscoalition.com/advocacy Francophile9 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)