This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the
Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
Ryoba (
talk·contribs) has been paid by RELX Group. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
disclosure
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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
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)reply
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)reply