This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Justin Trudeau article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: LGBT rights activistLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
As the Trudeau/Perry story has now made The Times of London[1] which writes: "The resulting images are as blurry as they are definitive, evidence of what can only accurately be described as “on-deck canoodling” — the money shot being Trudeau’s placement of his right hand, on Perry’s bottom. Hoorah! Months of speculation (or what would have been, had we not somehow forgotten all about it, I blame Anderson and Neeson) ended! A new, deliciously unlikely — and therefore extra-compelling — celebrity combination is confirmed, giving us some respite from all the war, death, destruction, abhorrent acts of racism and so forth", can we now mention it here? Wellington Bay (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think any information from TMZ or the Daily Mail should be included in the article, even if other credible sources reference it. The two mentioned publications are known for gossip and generally considered unreliable. It's best to wait for either Perry or Trudeau to confirm if they're in a relationship. Also, the pictures are blurry—can we even be sure it's them? 143kittypurry (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 143kittypurry. This is typical tabloid gossip type stuff, and there's really no need to include it on this article at this point. Let's give it some time. MediaKyle (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is no longer just TMZ or the Daily Mail but established Reliable Sources such as the Toronto Star, National Post, and the Times of London (possibly the most credible newspaper in the world) all of which have editorial standards which they follow. If an article in the Times of London calls something "definitive" and "confirmed" we are not in a position to second guess. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, those publications got the information from the Daily Mail and TMZ, which are both questionable sources. I suggest giving it some time and wait for either Perry or Trudeau to confirm if there is any relationship between them. 143kittypurry (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant here. Just because something was reported by the Star or anyone else doesn't automatically mean it needs to be included in an encyclopedia article. In any case, It seems the main concern at this point is the fact that this is secondhand reporting of the Daily Mail and TMZ, which I think is quite valid. When more can be said than "they may have been/currently are dating based on some blurry photographs" then I think there will be a better case for inclusion. MediaKyle (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're both second guessing the editors of the Times of London, the Toronto Star and the National Post. I can see not printing something because it's only been in the Daily Mail or TMZ but if and when Reliable Sources do pick it up then the required standard is met. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
Given that this has now been printed by sources which are indisputably WP:RS (the Times even using the words "confirmed" and "definitive"), the "high standard" has been met. Also this cannot be considered "scandalous" or "libellous" and as being seen in a restaurant (as was confirmed in the Canadian media[2]) and in the open waters there's no privacy violation. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
1) the Times of London, Toronto Star, and National Post are reliable
2) there is no reason to believe it's not true given the photographic evidence etc
On the contrary, Newimpartial, both links you provided DO use Daily Mail as a basis. They openly mention that tabloid by name when discussing the matter, and let's not downplay how that in itself is a problem, so neither are suitable for implementing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS I don't think that this is the way the Daily Mail deprecation is supposed to work. Both sources I linked refer to the Daily Mail as the source of photographs - which is a matter of fact, AFAICT - and both otherwise give (similar but intellectually independent) descriptions of the situation "on the ground" for which each publication "takes responsibility" in its own voice, under bylines of its own staff.
If you think the Daily Mail ban was supposed to exclude from WP articles content with a sourcing solution like this one, I suggest you take the question to a noticeboard. You seem close to stating that any matter that the Daily Mail breaks first, and where other publications refer back to the original Daily Mail "scoop" in their coverage, are to be excluded from article space even when they publish storied in their own voice. I really don't think that's how that decision was intended, or is generally understood. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing, there is no confirmation from either Perry or Trudeau regarding their "relationship". Gossip and unconfirmed information must not be included in Wiki articles, regardless of whether reliable sources publish them. 143kittypurry (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, it's a strange world we live in where a couple of adults hanging out, presumably having a few drinks and getting a little bit physical (which is then amplified through celebrity gossip cycles) is notable in any imaginable way. Do people these days just not socialize in person anymore? Lostsandwich (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I had been under the impression that any article relaying things from Daily Mail (especially contentious and/or personal claims involving people who are alive) should be taken with a grain of salt. My understanding was that when a publication overall is considered untrustworthy, we by extension should avoid pieces that use said publications as a primary or sole basis for claims, even when whatever it is relaying Daily Mail or other poor sources would otherwise be credible for original reporting. This didn't strike me as being akin to the run-of-the-mill type of articles where a journalist writes commentary on a celebrity's words taken from a social media post or an interview. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That ends when credible sources with professional staff who are able to verify information pick up a story. You're applying a fruit of the poisoned tree standard that goes far beyond WP:V and WP:RS and giving yourself the authority to veto judgements made be editors at some of the top newspapers in the world. It's overreach. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was accounting for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a thing you've been downplaying. That page states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." In other words, it's an oversimplification to assert that any source is infallible in the way it sounds like you suggested, and either way there is no issue with assessing individual pieces from a publication. When otherwise trustworthy publications provide a questionable or unclear basis for something, we should take it with a grain of salt instead of blindly assuming anything they write is always fully trustworthy. Even with all of that said, one's overall fame doesn't really count as a good way to determine inclusion within articles, contrary to what you implied before. A pair of highly famous people can theoretically just have a minor fling, and there's no guarantee that implementing it would be worthwhile. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Dictator Trudeau has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 13 § Dictator Trudeau until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)