Talk:Marks & Spencer

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Mands-food-logo.png (discussion)
• MandsNEW2.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Marks & Spencer. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. Status: The request has been given an initial review and is awaiting further discussion or additional information. The backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 486 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hello,

I work for Marks & Spencer and have a conflict of interest, so I am raising this here for independent review rather than editing directly.

I wanted to ask for a neutral editor’s view on the following passage currently in the article:

“However, some animal welfare organisations (Five Freedoms) have outlined Marks & Spencer's disregard for ethical benchmarks regarding seafood welfare. They claim that Marks & Spencer ‘serve seafood sourced from farms where animals endure unimaginable suffering’.”

From what I can see, this material appears to rely on a personal website and a campaign or advocacy source. I was therefore unsure whether it meets the standard of independent, reliable secondary sourcing typically expected under WP:RS.

I also wondered whether the wording may lean toward evaluative or advocacy-style language (e.g. “unimaginable suffering”), which may not fully align with a neutral, encyclopaedic tone unless carefully attributed in line with WP:NPOV. In addition, I was unsure whether this gives undue weight to a single perspective under WP:UNDUE.

With that in mind, I would respectfully request that editors consider removing this material in line with the policies above.

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. Nero1404 (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence is certainly too authoritative for my liking. The second one I don't have an issue with, since it's directly attributing that claim to a particular animal welfare organization (see WP:BIASED.) WP:UNDUE is the bigger concern here -- I think inclusion of a rebuttal on the part of M&S would be well warranted. In short, rewrite the first sentence, keep the second sentence, add on a third sentence. If you'd be willing to propose specific changes, particularly in regard to the third sentence, I'd be happy to incorporate them (if appropriate.) Cheers, DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 01:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)