Talk:Huw Edwards

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.

There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims . The Met Police and South Wales Police have said they are not pursuing action. Oh no no no no no (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• To add to this, although it may need some discussion, the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both points – I know what the papers are saying, but BLP applies here and we should err on the side of caution. We should also make it clear that this was over a number of years and wasn't a one-off payment in the lead. Perhaps wording such as "paying for explicit images from a younger male, beginning when he was a teenager" (someone can probably phrase this better than me). The teenage aspect doesn't seem in doubt, from what I can see. –GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Struck through as inaccurate —GnocchiFan (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi GnocchiFan. What's your source for "younger male"? Thanks. 86.187.224.83 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Young(er) person" might be better wording, per the sources already given. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, what's your source for this assertion: the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, been away for a couple of days. The Sun had originally quoted the stepfather of the person in question where he said he had reported things to the police and they said they were not able to proceed with any case as there was no illegality involved. This has since been confirmed by various outlets. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Which outlets? Does the article need to be modified to reflect this? Xan747 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, yes I get that, but how does that imply "that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time"? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because that would be illegal. Basic logic, but sure... synth. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, fair enough, if that's the only criteria that decides if paying for photos is illegal. But I wonder then why The Guardian say that it is only a "potentially" criminal offence. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto said:

> I wonder then why

If you have RS answering that question then please provide it. Xan747 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747, I'm not sure that I follow you, I thought what I said was quite clear. We have a reliable source throwing doubt on the assertion that I was questioning above. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto, Here's what the Sun said: A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.

Here's what our article says in the 2023 suspension section On 7 July 2023, allegations were first reported by The Sun that a "well known" name at the BBC had been paying a then-17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually-explicit photographs.

The only thing I might change the article text is to make clear that the payments occurred over a period of time; as it's written now it sounds like a one-time payment was made when the alleged victim was 17 in exchange for illicit photos, which we know to be incorrect. We don't know when the first pictures were sent, and we don't say so. We might infer no photos were sent until the alleged victim was 18, but that would be synth because afaik no RS say that either.

In sum, I see no problem with how the article is written other than some updates and tidying up. Since you apparently think otherwise, please suggest a specific edit, with RS to back it up. Xan747 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747, I'm not sure what point you're addressing here, but it doesn't seem to be the one that I was addressing in my post that you seem to be replying to. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean you don't have a problem with anything written in the article. Xan747 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto is right. It may just mean that no evidence was presented to the police, for whatever reason. The young person(s) may have been the owner(s) of that evidence and decided not to present it. The more telling question is why The Sun did not publish the initial young person's statement, which they made on Friday, that no illegal activity had taken place. The Sun changed their story on Monday to just say that "contact had begun" when the young person was still 17. 86.187.224.83 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Edit: I added "the mother and the young person are estranged" since that is reliably sourced, and pertinent. Xan747 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states: On 10 July, the lawyer of the alleged victim told the BBC that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in The Sun newspaper are rubbish".[40] [...] The Sun stated: "It is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17 years old", but that reporting did not mention whether explicit photos were exchanged when the alleged victim was 17 years old.[47]

Since the police did drop the investigation, it's reasonable to conclude that the explicit photos weren't taken until after the alleged victim turned 18, but it would be synth to actually put that in the article without an RS explicitly saying so. Edit: therefore I took no action per that part of the discussion. Xan747 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

COI tags on BBC sources

DeFacto has put conflict of interest tags on the BBC News sources in the section about the 2023 suspension. Per WP:RSPBBC BBC News is normally considered to be a reliable source and there doesn't seem to be a huge problem here. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The tags should be removed. Here's another RS with a story about how BBC News has worked on this which ilustrates why the tagging is nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That 'story', from a rival news outlet that 'also' has a clear COI in this matter, should clearly be discarded too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How does the Guardian have a COI here? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I'll AGF and take that as a serious question. The Guardian is a rival news outlet to both BBC News and The Sun. It has a vested interest in discrediting them both, but may choose to back one, BBC News perhaps, in attacking the other. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that you single out The Guardian for criticism in this particular instance, as that could be applied to using any newspaper/news organisation as a source on anything in a Wikipedia article on a newspaper. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan, I've only mentioned The Guardian because it has been cited in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So on that basis every news source has a COI. Which is slightly ridiculous, when you think about it. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, it is not ridiculous, it is obvious, and needs to be taken into account when the action of a news outlet is being discussed by other news outlets. WP:COISOURCE and WP:BIASED recognise that. A solution may be to contrast content from a cross-section of sources, carefully attributing who is saying what. That way readers will have a chance of cutting through the various editorialisations and loaded language we've seen so far presented as matter of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A cross-section of sources that you believe all have a COI? Or are you just talking about sources you aren't keen on? Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, neither - a cross-section of sources offering the various different interpretations of the same story. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of BBC News as a source, this is about whether, in this instance, they have a conflict of interests in the subject matter they are being used as a source for.

To me it is clear that as:

1. one of their employees is the subject of the article
2. their handling of an alleged complaint relating to one of their employees is part of the story
3. their reporting of the details of the initial allegations made in The Sun varies significantly from that given in other sources (who also have a COI here)

there is a clear case per WP:COISOURCE to be considered here. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. If there is a specific issue with a particular BBC report then bring it here and it can be discussed. But I don't see evidence that it has affected BBC reporting at all (indeed, listening to BBC radio reports at the time they broadcast very regular disclaimers about how the story and the reporting of it were being handled by different arms of the BBC). Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree as well. There is zero evidence that BBC News has not reported this in any way that stops them being an RS on it. If anything, per the Guardian article, the commentary has been how they've treated it like any other story. The soaraway Sun on the other hand... DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it is not a question of whether it is an RS, or not. It is whether they have a COI in this story, and it would seem that they have several. And I'd take anything The Guardian says on this with a pinch of salt, as they too have a COI as a rival of The Sun particularly. They might be supporting BBC News as an ally against The Sun. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By the same questionable reasoning, the Sun has a CoI when reporting on the BBC. And any news media source has a CoI when reporting on any other. Taken to its 'logical' conclusion, it would be difficult to find uninvolved sources at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But if we cannot resist to include the drama, we can contrast what the competing news outlets are saying, taking care to attribute each appropriately. That way readers will see how the journalists craft a story, carefully choosing words, to lead readers to take away the meaning they want them to hear. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, this is a question of whether BBC News is RS for this story. The only relevance of COI is if it compromises the RS status, otherwise, who cares. I've given an RS showing that the BBC has reported the story neutrally. Where are the RS that say otherwise? They're not there. Unless you can provide them this is just you're own WP:OR that there is an issue with BBC News reporting. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's the literal definition of a COI - the organisation has conflicting or incompatible interests. But as the other news outlets also have one of the COIs, that leaves us with no choice (other than to omit this story) but to provide an attributed cross-section of the available conflicting takes on the story. Or are we just going to stick with one version - the one from our preferred 'RS'? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But only you say this. There's no RS complaining about BBC News coverage. Where is the hue and cry about BBC News lack of independence? Seriously, you need to drop this dead end. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you not think the BBC has a conflict between defending its public image, reporting all it knows about the story, its duty of care to its employees, and possibly other things too? If not, why hasn't it divulged all that it knows and when it became aware of it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Chinese wall is a very basic concept. There is never an automatic COI. The RS is very clear that BBC News has reported this independently. Frankly, you're just pushing a personal POV which is becoming disruptive. Either put up some RS support evidencing this supposed BBC News bias or drop this. Do you have RS support for any claim that BBC News reporting has been biased? Yes or no. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How it tries to manage it is irrelevant - it still has it. Other news outlets have their own agendas too, and may choose to support an ally who is also attacking a rival. This sounds like a tangled web of tactical and selective 'reporting'. Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so why should we assume that any of the news outlet RSes we use are not biased, especially when reporting on the actions of their rivals? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly is all this 'ally' stuff coming from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it has several different competing interests involved with this story, its journalistic neutrality, its liability to its employee, its status relative to that of its news outlet rivals, etc. How can we say that none of those were being prioritised ahead of accurate and neutral reporting? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, to be honest I'm not sure where we're going to find any COI-free sources to describe this topic. Popcornfud (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, do you agree with that logic though? If not, how would you modify it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's one of those situations where we have to shrug and report what reliable sources say. What other course of action is there to take? We know so-called "reliable sources" are never 100% reliable anyway, and always have their own biases and interests. Should we avoid using Guardian reports on Rupert Murdoch media, as Murdoch is a rival to the Guardian? Etc. Popcornfud (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED we need to consider "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". However, if we choose to use sources with a COI, robust in-text attribution needs to be used to make it clear to users whose opinions are being stated. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Are BBC News reporters also likely to be the HR department for the BBC when it comes to deciding what should or shouldn't be done with Huw Edwards? No.

Is there anything in the stories that you can evidence as examples of clear bias that goes against the reporting by several other sources that can be explained by Edwards being a BBC employee? No.

At present there is nothing to show that the inclusion of BBC News sources is a COI breach, the reporting itself is factual in nature (not editorial) and typically backed by links to other sources.

So far the only source that was COI is one I removed, which was inclusion of comments by Adam Boulton who is employed as a media commentator by NewsUK (who also own The Sun). Apache287 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We have other articles that have the same issue, i.e. News International phone hacking scandal, and we've dealt with them perfectly well. I don't think it's an issue at all - or at least certainly not a COI one. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, how is it dealt with there then? Are the opinions weighted by prevalence in the sources, or what? And is there any case there of the public record being misrepresented in the article because an 'RS' has editorialised it that way? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

All we know so far is that a) The BBC suspended Edwards and b) the police said that none of it was illegal. There is a gap because we have no detailed comments from the BBC or Edwards on why this brouhaha occurred. Until there is some more detail, it is flailing around to accuse media sources of bias and conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup templates

@Black Kite, I thought cleanup templates should be left in place until the matter has been resolved - not reverted without a resolution. They are purely temporary tags that something is disputed and needs some sort of action, and when the problem is resolved they will be removed. As they are never intended to be permanent part of the article content, surely they are not within the scope of WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• I can't see that they don't fall under it, but regardless "Tags must be accompanied by either a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter". This didn't happen, so it's not unreasonable to remove it. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, there was no 'reason' parameter presented for that template, so I gave a detailed explanation for adding them in my edit summary. And as a discussion was already underway before the tags were removed, I thought it quite reasonable, and indeed very helpful, especially give the removers edit summary, to replace them. Perhaps you could put them back now, so readers and other editors are aware of the concern. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of BBC coverage

I've added the following to the BBC controversies article and was wondering if editors thought it was worth mentioning here?

The BBC's coverage of events was considered excessive by some. Claire Enders, a media analyst, told The New York Times: "What we had was a kangaroo court, which destroyed someone who did not commit a crime", saying that the BBC "got drawn into a trap set by The Sun". Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of The Guardian, also told the NYT that "The BBC lost its sense of proportion" in its coverage of the story, adding: "It gets into this mind-set where it feels it must make up for sluggishness in handling issues by showing a clean pair of hands in covering them."

References

GnocchiFan (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards "no" as that's very much about the BBC as a whole as opposed to Edwards. But of course the nature of that coverage might turn out to have had an impact on Edwards, or the various investigations, enquiries and other commentary, so it's not wholly irrelevant by any stretch. I think I'd prefer to leave it out until/unless there's a firmer link between the nature of that coverage and its impact on Edwards himself. WaggersTALK 12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also a no. I think this article should only include the most limited and pertinent aspects of this, so at this point purely what was alleged, that what was alleged has been de facto retracted, there were other allegations, Edwards is in hospital. Apache287 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

should parts of this article be in the past tense?

should parts of the article refering to his reporting at the bbc be in the past tense? it seems that he won't return beyond reasonable doubt Schlimple (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they should be in the past tense for now. I know people are saying that he was only suspended and that he might come back – okay, then we can change the tense if he does come back to work at the BBC, however (un)likely that may be. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Edwards hasn't been sacked or resigned from the BBC, so it is jumping the gun to say that he will never return. But I see the point that he isn't doing anything at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh totally. I mean, I think it's unlikely that he will return, but it would be firm WP:CRYSTAL territory to say that. But I don't think using the past tense does that. As you say, he isn't doing anything at the moment. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would vote to keep it present-tense for now. Officially he still is a BBC presenter, he's just suspended. That doesn't mean he's not a BBC presenter. was implies a degree of finality that is not yet certain or earned. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We only really use past tense for people who have died. If someone has changed role, we'd still use present tense but refer to them as a "former newsreader" / "former presenter" etc. But as others have said, Edwards has not been sacked or resigned so his role remains current until he or the BBC announce otherwise. WaggersTALK 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(See MOS:BLPTENSE for the guidance on this) WaggersTALK 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Until we reliably hear that he will no longer be doing those things how can we put them in the past tense? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to get things the wrong way around. On Wikipedia, we can only state that which we can verify with reliable sources. Currently, the lead has "He presents BBC News at Ten" (present tense). Given that Edwards isn't presenting New at Ten then it is going to be impossibly unlikely that a reliable source would say that Edwards is presenting News at Ten in September 2023 (but those who doubt could try and find such a source if they want). In fact reliable sources like the Guardian have reported that senior BBC journalists doubt that he will ever return to his former role (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/02/no-one-expects-him-back-what-now-for-bbc-huw-edwards) - although in accordance with WP:V - the onus for verifiability rests with those who want to add information not take it out. In sum, it's verifiably the case that Edwards "presented BBC News at Ten" it's not verifiable (or even true) that Edwards "presents BBC News at Ten". Greenshed (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Guardian article was published after most of the discussion above. At the time of the discussion there was nothing from any source indicating whether or not he was likely to return to work and we were right to be cautious about making changes.

Now that we do have a published source stating it's unlikely he'll return we can absolutely use that. The wording needs to be done carefully though - he is still employed by the BBC as their main news anchor (present tense), albeit suspended. My preference would be for the lead to say "he began presenting BBC News at Ten in (whatever year it was) but is currently suspended from the role" or something along those lines. Just tell it as it is but assume nothing. WaggersTALK 08:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian source quotes unnamed people in the BBC newsroom saying that they don't think he will come back. It's true, but it is just office gossip. If I were going down to the betting shop and placing a bet on this, I would also say that it is unlikely that he will present News at Ten again. But we need confirmation from the BBC or Edwards, and neither has made any comment on this since July.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, we don't need to know anything to remove a statement that cannot be verified (see WP:V). Specifically, the erroneous claim in the lead that "He presents BBC News at Ten" should not be in the article. Greenshed (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead as it stands "Until his suspension in July 2023, he was the lead presenter of BBC News at Ten, the flagship evening news programme of the BBC." is easy to verify and does the job nicely. The Career section no longer says he is the presenter, just when he started presenting. I think the article's fine as it (now) is. WaggersTALK 10:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Kudos to @Ianmacm for making those changes) WaggersTALK 10:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a story in i (newspaper) today which says that Edwards is set to leave the BBC.[1]. "A senior newsroom insider said: "The review is in and unfortunately there isn’t a path back for Huw. There is no expectation he will return." This isn't much further forward on previous stories quoting newsroom staff saying that he is unlikely to return, but it does provide some new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I will add the information that, when the BBC's apology for the original handling of the complaint was made last week, we did have a BBC newsreader (Nicky Schiller) that, on one occasion, referred to Mr Edwards as "the former BBC newsreader", although I do not know if this was intentional or was a slip of the tongue etc. Of course I cannot post a link to video of the news channel that shows this to order to provide verification to readers here, as these things get broadcast/on I-Player for two hours and then disappear from the public domain and I am not aware of anyone keeping a copy and posting it online anywhere. However, you have my eye-witness assurance as to what I heard (may or may not have said "BBC" but did say "former" and "newsreader" - wish I had written it down contemporaneously - and of course it came from BBC News that ought to know and be reliable as to whether one of its own journalists is former or not).

I now also wonder how many years we are going to wait of Edwards absence before Wikipedia says former newsreader? Potentially, if the BBC never ever issues any details as to what happens with the complaint and Edwards remains suspended indefinitely, do we have to await an 'official' confirmation as the only verification before we change no matter how long he remains off air and never returns? It is now 8 months - at some point, eventually, it will become more untenable to say he is going to return, if he doesn't come back in the meantime but are we waiting for what seems like a slim chance of this happening whilst at the moment being biased towards the status quo and not neutral point of view at all because we only have him as a newsreader as the start point, if this was possibly appointed as a newsreader but not yet announced and awaiting official verification we wouldn't be talking about removing him from being called one here, instead we would be refusing to put him as a newsreader until it was verified that this is what he is or is going to be. The only reason he is still claimed to be a newsreader despite not doing any newsreading for months and months is because of historical reason that makes us biased in maintaining this status quo position and arguably already after it is becoming increasingly untenable. aspaa (talk) 17:38, 04 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for an official statement from the BBC, or from Edwards himself, don't we? Yes, it might take months more, or even years. Perhaps we need to put "newsreader (currently suspended)" or something like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that Edwards is now in a weird limbo. He isn't exactly fired by the BBC and he isn't exactly employed either. He is apparently still suspended on full pay, and this may be a very long period of gardening leave. Much as it seems logical to say "former newsreader" in the article as none of the newsroom staff expect him to return, he still hasn't officially left the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there really any reason to be so desperate to add "former" to our articles? This came up recently at BLPN in relation to another article and I don't quite understand it. I'm fairly sure it's a standard applied fairly inconsistency. I mean sure with cases like Michael Caine and Michael J. Fox where someone has formally announced a retirement or something we can report it. But otherwise it seems unnecessary. E.g. Phillip Schofield doesn't say former but we do mention he himself saying his career is over and frankly that seems fine to me. Edit: For clarity I'm only referring to general careers like newsreader, presenter, actor etc. In the case of of specific jobs etc, we do have to handle it somehow. In other words, I do agree saying someone presents something which they haven't done for months and may never do again is more problematic. Although even in these cases, I think in most cases in the article on the person, "former" still isn't necessary. Instead we should handle these the same way we normally handle such things like Tony Blair and say they served in the role from X to Y or some variant of that. Of course deciding when someone is no longer in that role can be complicated in cases like since if there has not been any specific announcement finding sources on it may be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)