Talk:RELX Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Reed Elsevier)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Suggested changes to RELX Group page[edit]

About us[edit]

I work in the communications team at RELX Group, and would like to suggest some changes for this page which in general is very out of date. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for change revert[edit]

Hi. Can someone please look at my comment here regarding undoing a recent change (talk) and see if that's something that can be reverted? Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi - The deleted material did look very technical - I certainly do not think it is appropriate in the lead. Dormskirk (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 6 April 2016[edit]

Hi - I have a few more suggestions for content edits that could hopefully improve the page further (it's looking so much better now than it used to, so thanks everyone for your help so far!)

Operations > Scientific, Technical & Medical section At the end of the ScienceDirect sentence add ', and has 12m monthly users who downloaded 900m articles in 2015' - could be sourced from the Annual Report.

It would be really useful to have an intro paragraph to each of the business areas too, just to give an overview before it continues into the individual products.

eg. Scientific, Technical & Medical: RELX Group's Scientific, Technical & Medical business provides information, analytics and tools that help investors make decisions that improve scientific and healthcare outcomes. It operates under the name of Elsevier and generated revenues in the year to 31 December 2015 of £2bn.

There is an existing paragraph beginning 'Elsevier is the world's largest...' which should really move up to form part of this introduction too - at the moment it is underneath the products.

eg. Risk & Business Analytics: Risk & Business Analytics provides information-based analytics and decision tools that enable customers to evaluate and manage risk.

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Please can you provide independent references as usual, please. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
For the Risk & Business Analytics intro sentence, could you use this?: "Risk & Business Analytics provides decision-making tools which help banks spot money launderers and insurance companies weed out fraudulent claims" - source: - also, "It operates under the name of Elsevier and generated revenues in the year to 31 December 2015 of £2bn." could be sourced here: - thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 11 Mar 2016[edit]

Hi, the RELX Annual Report was published this week, so there are a few figures that could do with updating if possible?

Intro section:

1. '...operates in 38 countries' to '...operates in about 40 countries'

2. The US/Europe/ROW split has changed from 50%/29%/21% to '54%/26%/20%' (could lose the word 'About' at the start too)

3. 'Print now generates just 14 per cent' to 'Print now generates just 15 per cent'

4. 'RELX Group's 28,000 employees' to 'RELX Group's 30,000 employees'

History section - 21st century

1. Value of acquisitions should read £300m not dollars

Operations section


1. 'It publishes 380,000 articles a year' to 'It publishes 400,000 articles a year'

2. Maybe lose the last sentence of that para 'Elsevier had annual sales' as it's a 2014 figure?

Risk & Business:

1. Remove mention of 'Elsevier magazine' as that business is being sold

2. ADAM programme has now traced 155 missing children

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, many thanks for that. For clarity, could you also change it so that all figures are the adjusted ones? At the moment we have a mix of adjusted and reported values on the page which is a bit confusing. Operating income changes from £1,497 billion to £1,822 billion. Net income changes from £1.0140 billion to £1.275 billion. Also in the financial performance table, the 2015 Adjusted operating profit should be 1,822 and the EPS should be 60.5p (€0.835 - the historical euro figures will need updating too as it now uses a different ratio, but I'm still trying to get hold of those). Thanks Ryoba (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have amended the financial performance table to show adjusted figures but for the infobox I have kept the reported figures to maintain comparability with other companies. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 4 Feb 2016[edit]

Hi, The Bookseller has just published an interesting piece that could make a good source for this page. Would it be possible to get this added to the Corporate Social Responsibility section?

"In 2016 Elsevier's not-for-profit Elsevier Foundation committed $1m a year, for 3 years, to programmes encouraging diversity in science, technology and medicine and promoting science research in developing countries."

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 22 Jan 2016[edit]

Hi - I just have a few more suggestions for updates if possible:

1. In the info panel, please change Industry from "Media" to "Information and Analytics". Also update the Products line - changing "trade fairs" to "exhibitions"

2. End of first paragraph, High Performance Computer Cluster, should say Computing, not Computer. Also, there is a Wikipedia page for HPCC Systems - can that be linked?

3. To give the significant acquisitions and disposals sections some context, would it be possible to add a line at the top of each like this?: "The group's strategy is to acquire relevant datasets and technologies, or businesses in fast-growing geographies" and "The company's strategy has been to evolve print businesses into data services or dispose of print and advertising related operations"

4. Scientific, Technical & Medical section. Please can we show Elsevier's annual sales figure in sterling instead of Euros? (£2bn)

5. Exhibitions section. Can the last line please change to "In 2007, Reed Exhibitions sold its defense exhibitions business"? The current line sounds a bit vague.

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

All done except 3 which really needs an independent source. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, 21 December 2015[edit]

Hi - Can someone please remove the mention of Anglo-Dutch from the introduction paragraph? This is an outdated term which used to apply to the company, but is no longer very accurate. Only a very small percentage of revenue now comes from the UK and Netherlands as it's a global company. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions, 2 December 2015[edit]

Hi - There have been a few more recent major press articles published about the company that provide some interesting facts that could be included on this page: a. Financiele Dagblat: b. De Financiele Telegraaf: c. Forbes:

Key suggestions to include, taken from the above referenced articles: RELX Group In 2000, two-thirds of revenues were from print and only a small percentage was digital. By 2015, those numbers had been reversed. Print now generates just 14 per cent of revenues at RELX Group - De Financiele Telegraaf and Financiele Dagblat 7,000 of RELX Group’s 28,000 employees are technologists. About 95 per cent of the company’s €500m capital spending is on technology. High Performance Computer Cluster technology is crucial to the company’s strategy - Financiele Dagblat

Operations > Exhibitions Reed Exhibitions is the world’s largest exhibitions company, running 500 shows for 140,000 exhibitors and 7m visitors - Financiele Dagblat

Operations > Scientific Elsevier had annual sales of €2.8bn in 2014 - Financiele Dagblat

Operations > Risk and Business Since 2000, LexisNexis Risk Solutions technology has helped trace 149 missing children - De Financiele Telegraaf In 2015, Forbes Magazine voted LexisNexis, a RELX Group company, one of the top 10 employers in the US Tech Sector - Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoba (talkcontribs) 12:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I was not able to open either of the first two articles, presumably because I am not a registered reader (and wiki readers should not be required to reveal their identities to read articles). I have picked up the suggestion from Forbes. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the Forbes one. Is there a Wikipedia policy about using paid content as references? It just seems strange as it means people can't cite a large number of very highly regarded publications (the FT, Times, Telegraph etc.) which surely would be very reliable sources, but we are allowed to use free ones which may not be anywhere near as trustworthy. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? @Fgnievinski:? Ryoba (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe paid content can be used as references. The issue is that I personally am not able to help as I cannot access the sources you have quoted and it would be wrong for me to edit blind. Dormskirk (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Open-access is preferable but toll-access is not forbidden; I suggest Ryoba cite those references. fgnievinski (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change[edit]

The Financial Times has recently published an article ( with some good source material, so I'd like to suggest adding the following paragraph to the Scientific, Technical & Medical section:

"Elsevier is the world’s largest publisher of academic articles with 16 per cent market share, according to the Financial Times. It publishes 380,000 articles a year in about 2,500 journals. Its best-known titles are The Lancet and Cell. In 1995, Forbes Magazine predicted Elsevier would be “the first victim of the internet” as it was disrupted and disintermediated by the world wide web. Twenty years later, in 2015, Elsevier had quadrupled revenues and profits."

also, I'd suggest updating the boycott section that reads "Between 2012 and June 2015, about 15,088 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott." to say "Between 2012 and November 2015, about 15,391 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott. In 2014, Elsevier received article submissions from 1.8m authors." again citing the FT article above.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have dropped the bit "Twenty years later, in 2015, Elsevier had quadrupled revenues and profits" as that did sound a bit over the top (WP:ADVERT). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Great - thanks again. I accept your concerns there, but is there any chance we could give that last statement a bit more balance somehow? Even just adding something along the lines of 'Twenty years later, this prediction hasn't yet come true' Ryoba (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I have added the word "wrongly" in the context of the prediction which should help. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change[edit]

In the Boycott section, it currently states that "Reed Elsevier has been criticised for the high prices of its journals and services, especially Elsevier and LexisNexis." Can we please remove the mention of LexisNexis from this? Whilst it may be true to say that Elsevier has been criticized for this, it has certainly never been an issue for LexisNexis, and it is incorrect to include them as part of this statement. There is no source for this existing text so I don't know where that claim came from. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks - I've also just noticed some of this information is duplicated on the page as well. Under the Operations section it says "Between 2012 and June 2015, about 15,088 scientists have signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott." and "Elsevier has been criticized for its high prices; excessive profitability; and limiting the diffusion of innovation by putting scientific research behind paywalls" - that information is then covered again in the Boycott section below. Can these been combined so they only appear in one place? Ryoba (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested changes[edit]

The current Operations section is very light and doesn't give any detail about what each division actually does. Our suggested edits below contain some financial information which you may feel would be better placed elsewhere, but I've left it here in case you think it's ok as it is. There is quite a lot of content here so please let me know if we can help with any citations. If possible, could this also please be moved above the History section as this is probably more useful to anyone searching for the company? Thanks.

- Operations section - Current -

Reed Elsevier conducted its business through the following divisions: - The scientific, technical and medical publishing division is Elsevier. - The risk and business information division consists of LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Reed Business Information. - The legal publishing division is LexisNexis Legal & Professional. - The exhibitions division is Reed Exhibitions.

- Operations section - Suggested -

Operations RELX Group operates in four market segments: - Scientific, Technical & Medical, under the Elsevier brand - Risk & Business Information, under the LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Reed Business Information brands - Legal, under the LexisNexis brand - Exhibitions, under the Reed Exhibitions brand.

Scientific, Technical & Medical

Elsevier generates about 36 per cent of RELX Group’s revenues and has been growing about 2 per cent a year. In 2014, it had revenues of about £2 billion and adjusted operating profits of about £762m. The business is headquartered in Amsterdam and has about 7,000 full time employees globally. Revenues are generated from content brands such as Cell, The Lancet and Gray’s Anatomy; electronic reference tools such as Science Direct and Scopus; and decision tools such as Scival and Mendeley. About 74 per cent of the revenues are electronic.

Elsevier is the largest publisher of primary research with about 16 per cent market share of articles published in its 2,436 journals. About 1,600 Elsevier subscription journals offer a sponsored “open access” option. The company also has 144 author pays open access journals. Leading brands include The Lancet and Cell.

Elsevier receives 1.1m article submissions every year from about 1.8m authors. It co-ordinates with about 17,000 editors, 72,000 editorial board members, and 700,000 reviewers, who provide 1.8m reviews a year. Since 2006, the number of articles published has increased 5 per cent on average every year to 380,000 in 2014. Its market share among the highest quality articles – measured by field-weighted citation impact – increased from 18 per cent in 2009 to 28 per cent in 2013. This is despite the Cost of Knowledge Boycott. Between 2012 and June 2015, about 15,088 scientists have signed the boycott.

ScienceDirect, an online database of primary research, contains 13 million documents and has 10 million unique monthly visitors, who download about 750 million research documents every year, or about 25 a second. Content is provided free or at very low cost in most of the world’s poorest countries through Research4Life.

Scopus is a bibliographic database containing abstracts and citations for academic journal articles. It contains more than 50 million items in more 20,000 titles from 5,000 publishers worldwide. Scival helps institutions establish, execute and evaluate research strategies.

Mendeley is a desktop and web program for managing and sharing research papers, discovering research data and collaborating online. The company was founded in November 2007 by three German PhD students and is based in London. It was acquired by Elsevier in 2013.

Elsevier has been criticized for its high prices; excessive profitability; and limiting the diffusion of innovation by putting scientific research behind paywalls.

Risk and Business Information

From 2014, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Reed Business Information were combined by RELX Group into a single business area, known as Risk & Business Information. The business generated £1.43bn of revenues in 2014, about 36 per cent of RELX Group’s revenues, and posted adjusted operating profits of £506m. The business is co-headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, and Sutton in the UK. About 85 per cent of the revenues are electronic, and make extensive use of RELX Group’s HPCC Systems.

Risk & Business Information includes: - Insurance Solutions, which provides analytics to auto insurers in the US - Business Services, which provides fraud detection, credit risk management and anti-money laundering products - Government Solutions, which helps state and federal authorities prevent fraud. The business claims to have saved the state of Florida more than $60 million a year by preventing benefit fraud. - Health Care Solutions, which helps prevent fraud, waste and abuse in health care systems - Data Services, such as ICIS, a data service for the chemicals industry, Accuity, an anti-money laundering company and XpertHR, a service for HR professionals - And leading brands, such as Flightglobal, Farmers Weekly, Elsevier Magazine and New Scientist


RELX Group’s legal business operates under the LexisNexis brand. It is number one or two in most of its geographical markets, competing for the most part against Westlaw. In 2014, the business generated £1.39bn in revenues, about 24 per cent of group revenues, and posted an operating profit of £260m. About 77 per cent of the business’ revenues are electronic. The business is headquartered in New York.

Many of LexisNexis’ brands date back to the nineteenth century or earlier. These include Butterworths and Tolley in the UK and JurisClasseur in France.


RELX Group’s exhibitions business is called Reed Exhibitions. It is the world’s largest exhibitions company, with market leading positions in the US, Mexico, Japan, Brazil, France and Australia. In 2014, it generated revenues of £890m about 15 per cent of RELX’s sales, and posted an adjusted operating profit of £217m. Each year, the business hosts about 500 events, bringing 7 million people together. The business is headquartered in Richmond, a London suburb.

Reed Exhibitions’ events include Batimat, Mipcom, JCK Las Vegas, Star Wars Celebration, World Travel Market, Mipim, New York Comic Con, London Book Fair, Intercharm Professional and PAX Prime.

In January 2013, shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting when 20 children and six adult staff members were killed, Reed Exhibitions caused an uproar at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show when it decided to not allow personal defense weapons at the show, also known as AR-15s. This decision caused a huge backlash and subsequent boycott that eventually shut the show down for that year. Also the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) terminated their management of the SHOT show held in Las Vegas every year.

Hi - I have again picked quite a bit of this up, particularly the material on market share and publications, although it was not easy getting it independently sourced. Again financial information is normally only included, using standard parameters, in the infobox: the trouble is it is out of date so quickly and suffers from recentism (See WP:RECENT). The bit about Sandy Hook is already included in the history section. By the way the history section comes before the operations section: just take a look at any other FTSE 100 company or FTSE 250 company. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested changes[edit]

Paragraph 1 Introduction - Current

RELX Group is an Anglo-Dutch multinational publishing and information company. It operates in the science, medical, legal, risk, marketing, financial, and business sectors.

Paragraph 1 Introduction - Suggested

RELX Group is an Anglo-Dutch multinational information and analytics company headquartered in London, in the United Kingdom. It operates in four market segments: scientific, technical and medical; risk and business information; legal; and exhibitions.

RELX Group is a dual-listed company. RELX PLC, the London Stock Exchange listed shareholding vehicle, holds 52.9% of the shares in RELX Group. RELX NV, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange listed shareholding vehicle, holds 47.1% of the shares in RELX Group. The shares are traded on the London, Amsterdam and New York Stock Exchanges using the following ticker symbols: London: REL; Amsterdam: REN; New York: RELX and RENX. The company is one of the constituents of the FTSE 100, FT Global 500 and Euronext 100. In June 2015, the total market capitalisation was about £21.7bn GBP or €29.8bn Euro or $33.2bn, making it one of the top 30 companies in the FTSE100.

The company employs about 28,500 employees in 34 countries and serves customers in more than 180 nations. About half the group’s £5.7bn revenues are generated from the US, with 29 per cent from Europe and 21 per cent from the rest of the world. The company had reported net margins of 17 per cent in 2014.

Hi - I have picked up most of this. We do not normally include market cap as it changes from day to day. Financial information is normally included, using standard parameters, in the infobox. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for picking that up and for all of the general pointers. That all makes sense now Ryoba (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Elsevier is a division of RE, along with Harcourt, Lexis-Nexis and Reed. Whilst there's an argument to cover all four divisions under the singular entry of Reed Elsevier, the four companies operate quite independently of each other, and it is perhaps fairer to say that 'at the moment' they are all divisions of RE.

I'd rather have different articles at the moment. --moyogo 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So can we remove the merge tag?... extraordinary 08:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article should be separate. The several sections maintain quite different profiles (in terms of what they publish), with Elsevier particularly being quite different from teh Reed companies (Elsevier is all science, Reed is mostly trade). The addition of Lexis-Nexis, which serves a third (and fourth) market, as well as other smaller divisions serving other markets, suggests that the best response is to have a Reed-Elsevier article that covers the combined company, with links to/from the component companies. A combined entry without the separate entries would become clumsily large and unwieldy, or be so noninformative as to be useless to most readers

I agree they should remain separate. Each business unit (Reed = business, LexisNexis = legal, Elsevier = science, and Harcourt = education) has its own distict focus and target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ha... I guess you would know. ;-) -- 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Have removed the merge tag based on the above comments from the last few months. Anyone who's interested has had loads of time for input. Does anyone care?... :) extraordinary 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I work at Reed Elsevier and we've just been making some website changes. We noticed that a couple of things should probably be updated on here too to correct some old information. I think the main one is that the Risk and Business divisions now report combined figures [1], so the Operations section should now show 'Scientific, Technical & Medical: Elsevier', 'Risk Solutions & Business Information: LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Reed Business Information', 'Legal: LexisNexis Legal & Professional', 'Exhibitions: Reed Exhibitions'. Is that OK? Ryoba (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Two articles about the same company?[edit]

Please weigh in: Talk:RELX_Group#Two_articles_about_the_same_company?. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am getting this sorted out. I have moved it temporarily to RELX but it needs to be moved to RELX Group. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Now sorted. Thanks for pointing this out. Dormskirk (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: thanks for merging the duplicates. Could you pls summarize if any content was discarded in either the old Reed Elsevier or the new RELX Group? E.g., there was some discussion at the new Talk:RELX Group which seems gone. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi – Sure. The current article is substantially based on the old Reed Elsevier article except that an excellent paragraph beginning “in January 2013 shortly after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting...” was imported from the other article. Much of the rest of the other article had been sourced from the company’s website or from company press releases and could not be used per WP:SOURCE. The talk page you are reading is the old Reed Elsevier talk page. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: Could you at least point us to the original version of RELX Group? It's been discarded without a trace. I'd like to restore the talk page discussions, and also go over the new original material, as I believe WP:ABOUTSELF takes precedence over WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thanks, fgnievinski (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi – Yes. It has been deleted by an administrator now, because as you rightly pointed out, we cannot have two articles on the same company on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I did not download a copy or anything like that. That said I have made a few additions myself to the history section in order to deal with some gaps. Again, thanks for pointing the issue out otherwise we would have had two competing articles for some time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: That was too drastic. Could you ask the admin involved to please restore it into Talk:RELX Group/Draft. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Fgnievinski:A copy of the original content for the new RELX Group page that I previously submitted, and that has now been deleted, is still available on my sandbox if that's of any help? I hope you'll agree, there is a lot of useful, accurate content there, compared to what is currently on the RELX Group page - much of which is still inaccurate. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ryoba: Thanks; could you please go ahead and edit the current page restoring the factual corrections. I recommend new material be inserted in separate edits (e.g., one per section), so that if someone objects it can be reverted in parts not in bulk. Material that you'd like removed or shortened (as per WP:UNDUE) might be more contentious but still doable if reasonable. Sorry about the hassle. fgnievinski (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryoba: Good solution. I hope, with all the effort that has gone into independently sourcing the current RELX Group article, that it is not too inaccurate. Some really good examples of company employees working collaboratively with the wikipedia community to generate quality articles can be found at Talk:Aviva and Talk:Bechtel. And remember that all information needs to be independently sourced per WP:SOURCE. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Fgnievinski:@Dormskirk:Thanks so much for your help. I've submitted the changes - I hope I've done it all correctly. I've tried to retain as many of the existing sources and content as I could and I've found alternate, independent sources for others which were previously sourced from the RELX website. Ryoba (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ryoba: OK. I see quite a bit of the new material is still sourced from the RELX website or is unsourced. I will work through and remove the bits that do not comply. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: OK, thanks - most of the RELX website sources that I've left are from the Annual Report or CR Report - both are legal documents, so I'd have thought they'd be acceptable sources?
@Ryoba: I agree that they are both issued in accordance with legal requirements but they are not really independent sources are they? I think there is more you could add back if you can find the sources. And don't forget WP:RECENT - you need material which will stand the test of time: so segmental financial information is not much help - it will be out of date by January! I have added back in most of the CSR material having found the relevant sources. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: Within WP:SOURCE, WP:ABOUTSELF takes precedence over WP:SELFPUBLISH, so I believe removing statements sourced to the company's website is not always the right thing to do. Would you please explain your rationale. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Fgnievinski: Hi - Sure. My reading of WP:SELFPUB is that the requirements to be met are quite demanding e.g. that the material should not be self-serving or make claims about third parties. Take for example “Elsevier is the largest publisher of primary research with about 16 percent market share of articles published in its 2,436 journals” and “Elsevier receives 1.1m article submissions every year from about 1.8m authors. It co-ordinates with about 17,000 editors, 72,000 editorial board members, and 700,000 reviewers, who provide 1.8m reviews a year.” These comments are both promotional and make claims about third parties. That said I think that these specific claims are potentially interesting to the reader so, if they can be independently sourced, then I would be entirely content for them to be added back. I have personally had to source most of the references for the article as it is so, if someone else can pick up that task I would be grateful. Other bits were just not very factual or encyclopedic e.g. “The Company has said that if it executes its strategy effectively, it will have more predictable and faster-growing revenues and better return on capital.” And some other bits smack of recentism e.g. “In 2014, it had revenues of about £2 billion and adjusted operating profits of about £762m”: this will be out of date in 3 months. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dormskirk: Thanks again. We can definitely have a look for alternate sources for some of this information. Could you please just clarify your thoughts about promotion and recentism though? eg. On Wikipedia's own page it says things like "As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month" - doesn't that raise the same questions? Ryoba (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ryoba: A claim of 18 billion page views and 500 million unique visitors is exactly the sort of claim which should be independently sourced and, if has not been, then it certainly should be based on wikipedia's own guidelines. As regards regards promotion and recentism, providing the claim is factual and the volumes are not dropping off then I think this sort of information is fine. If you can find independent sources for similar claims for RELX publications then I would be fine with that from a recentism point of view and, providing there is not too much of it and it does not therefore appear promotional, then I would be fine with it from a promotion point of view as well. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)