Talk:LexisNexis/Archives/2016

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to close and there was no objections to this.188.222.89.64 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose that LexisNexis Butterworths be merged into LexisNexis. I think that the content in the LexisNexis Butterworths article can easily be explained in the context of LexisNexis, and the LexisNexis article is of a reasonable size that the merging of LexisNexis Butterworths will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Davopazza (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge - I believe this is a good idea due to the LexisNexis Butterworths page having issues. This could easily become a subsection of this page.Davopazza (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pages Merged

Page content merged toLexisNexis from LexisNexis Butterworths.

Add Accurint to other products?

Accurint is a hell of a product: a searchable database of 45B (they claim) public records used by law enforcement, gov't, lawyers, etc. Especially notable given recent public interest in privacy and surveillance. I'm a bit too new to Wikipedia to write it myself, but it's probably worth adding to the Other products section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfed (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all published case opinions in the United States back to the 1770s?

"Besides all current statutes and laws, Lexis contains nearly all published case opinions in the United States back to the 1770s" 1770? This has to be 1970! -- 172.180.145.57 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, 1770 is correct. Actually, they have a lot of English opinions as far back as the 1500s as well, and lots of Canadian opinions, and Australian opinions, and so on. It's because they have such a ridiculously enormous and comprehensive database that people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars per hour for many years to use Lexis --- although since 2000, customer pressure (and competition from newer companies like Loislaw) has finally forced Lexis to switch nearly all accounts to flat monthly fees. --Coolcaesar 02:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I got around to adding a second screenshot (showing a 1768 case retrieved through LexisNexis Academic Universe) to dispose of ignorant skeptics who doubt the depth of LexisNexis's content coverage! --Coolcaesar 04:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are these screen shots? They don't seem to be in the article or here on the talk page. 123LLS (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Sheshunoff | Pratt section

The second paragraph of the Sheshunoff | Pratt section has "founded in 1972" in the first sentence and "founded in 1971" in the second sentence.

This section has two occurrences of "Thompson" and two occurrences of "Thomson".

A qualified editor should resolve these inconsistencies. 123LLS (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

database errors and corrections

• ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Lexis-Nexis-trouble-understanding/td-p/4489670/page/2

LexisNexis Pays $14M In Suit Over Reports Sold To Debt Cos.

By Juan Carlos Rodriguez

Law360, New York (March 18, 2013, 1:55 PM ET) -- LexisNexis will pay $13.5 million and overhaul its Accurint background search product to settle nationwide class action claims that it sold reports to debt collectors without following consumer protection laws, it said Friday.

The dispute centered around whether the Accurint reports, which were used by debt collectors to track down consumers, were "consumer reports" as defined under the FCRA. The plaintiffs contended that the reports were consumer reports under the act. Since LexisNexis did not treat them as such, it violated the FCRA by selling the reports without first obtaining certification from users, the plaintiffs alleged.

"Customers who are granted access to the Collections Decisioning product and services will now be permitted to use the information only if they are able to certify a permissible purpose under [the act]," the motion said. "Consumers will be able to request and review their consumer files, which will display inquiries and omit certain prohibited information. Consumers will be able to make a dispute and defendants will be required to follow reasonable procedures to help assure accuracy."

The service collects and aggregates information about millions of consumers and businesses from public and nonpublic sources, including motor vehicle records and consumer identification information from credit reporting agencies, and maintains and stores the information in computer databases.

The suit alleged LexisNexis provided consumers incomplete copies of their Accurint files even though they asked for a "full file disclosure."

The case is Berry et al. v. LexisNexis Risk & Analytics Group Inc., case number 3:11-cv-00754, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

• ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Lexis-Nexis-trouble-understanding/td-p/4489670/page/3

"As a consumer, and depending on the state of your residency, you may be able to request that a security freeze be placed on certain data that LexisNexis Risk Solutions maintains about you, including some or all of the following: C.L.U.E. reports, Current Carrier reports, and Riskview reports."

"Any security freeze that you request will apply to only those applicable information products that are created and maintained by LexisNexis Risk Solutions."

"To add a security freeze to your credit file, you must contact the individual credit reporting agencies."

Some kinds of "security questions" in common use now require the user/customer/client to "prove" their identity by furnishing answers to obscure personal questions about their past which match data held in various databases. LexisNexis is a common source of this "service" to many institutions. It is common for consumers to "fail" this test either because the questions are too obscure or because some percentage of these vast hidden databases are garbled/wrong. Consumers are unaware of these data sources, do not have access to their contents, and are mostly powerless to correct the wrong data about themselves. -71.174.180.38 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of lexis nexis

What does that translate to in English? Legal connection?

Utipossidetis (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[lex nexus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) or somesuch would be "legal connection". "LexisNexis" isn't a Latin phrase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LEX Nexus means law connection or legal connection in latin and also LEX Nexus is a well established law firm (www.lexnexus.com or www.lexnexus.net) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.139.138 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From the latin, 'lexis' means legal, and 'nexis' means news. The company produces legal and corporate news information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin lex, legis means 'law'; 'Lexis' is a coinage from it. 'Nexis' is most likely a coinage formed by substituting 'N' as in 'news' for the first letter. (The Latin word for 'news' would probably be nuntius.) This is my conjecture, though; I don't have an authoritative source saying how the names were devised. Wgrommel (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Predecessor needed for LexisNexis UK

The sentence "LexisNexis UK was founded in 1818 by Henry Butterworth" is clearly anachronistic, and the note attached to it is worthless. Ideally, this section should say something like "Company A was founded by Henry Butterworth; over the next X years it became the [largest, second-largest...] publisher of law books in the UK; in year Y it was acquired by LexisNexis." I would correct this myself but don't have access to the relevant facts. Wgrommel (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)