Talk:RELX

Archives (Index)

2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 2023

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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 Is there anything actually inaccurate or out of date about the page as currently drafted?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)

So here is an excert from a recent (November 2025) article in the Financial Times: "Relx, which can trace its history back almost 150 years, has managed to fundamentally shift from a stalwart of the printed-media sector a few decades ago to emerge at the vanguard of the UK’s corporate AI hopes.... The transformation has been wildly successful, making the company one fo the best investments in the FTSE in the past few decades. In the past 20 years, the share prices has risen about 380 per cent.... Since the company's inception with the 1993 merger of the UK's Reed and Elsevier of the Netherlands, total shareholder returns - when reinvesting dividends - have been just under 2,200 per cent. ... It was the first major company to introduce a generative AI platform legal professionals and the frist to commercialise a large-scale agentic AI platform. Relx now has more than 15 generative AI products in the market." https://www.ft.com/content/c7f17507-d36d-43c7-9a96-aa66534cf278

So let me guess. User:Dormskirk will say this is "promotional", citing: Wikipedia:PROMO He deleted an entry about RELX in August for that reason.

True, the FT article does contain information that is positive about RELX. However, firstly the article is accurate. Secondly, I can't see anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that says that information about corporate entities has to be negative. If you want to cite: Wikipedia:PROMO the article isn't advocacy, propaganda or for recuritment. It's not an opinion piece concerning current affairs; it's not scandalmongering; it's not self-promotion; and it's not advertising, marketing, publicity or public relations.

Over to you Dormskirk. Let's see what excuse you have this time for not including accurate information from an FT article. Francophile9 (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So that we can properly consider your request please can you give a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made per WP:EDITXY. So there is no confusion, please can you confirm that edit requests will now come from you rather than from Ryoba who has previously represented the company. Also, if you are representing the company, please can the company consider moderating its tone. RELX management really needs to consider whether "Let's see what excuse you have this time..." really reflects its values. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)