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.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 Katy Perry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Katy Perry 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.Katy PerryWikipedia:WikiProject Katy PerryTemplate:WikiProject Katy PerryKaty Perry
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 Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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: Perry is famous for her LGBT-themed songs and is an LGBT rights activistLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
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 within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
@TerraNulliusClaimer She is a Space tourist. Commercial astronaut implies she went to space for a space profession, she didn't. Regardless, the term astronaut is defined by NASA and previous discussion has found consensus that Katy Perry is not to be labeled an astronaut in this article. You can open a discussion for a different term. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any other proposals might just be beating a dead horse when there already have been multiple threads on what the trip makes her into. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the Perry/Justin Trudeau story has now made no less credible a source than 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]
"the Daily Mail" "generally considered unreliable" Quite an understatement. The Daily Mail has been deprecated as a Wikipedia source since 2017, though there is an exception for its older articles that can be cited in "a historical context". See the relevant policy on the Daily Mail. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, 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) 12:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Times of London is jumping to conclusions based on blurry images, which at best feels presumptuous and I'm inclined to say violates WP:BLP. That piece also comes off as gossipy in tone. Even if it did count as sufficient and either party had confirmed being more than friends, not every relationship is worth adding to pages per WP:NOTADIARY. At least that piece doesn't appear to be using Daily Mail or TMZ as a basis for this, which was something that weakened the credibility of the particular articles you used from National Post and Toronto Star. When an otherwise trustworthy publication uses something subpar to base their reports off of, that makes them unusable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are second guessing the editor of one of the world's leading and most respected newspapers. Not only is that highly presumptuous but it's not our role as Wikipedia editors. The information has a reliable source, that is what we need to know. We are not in a position to question the editorial judgements of a reliable source. WP:NOTADIARY is about the inclusion of "trivial" events. Dating the former Prime Minister of Canada is not a "trivial" event in Perry's biography. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point on WP:NOTADIARY, which is that we shouldn't simply assume non-platonic relationships are always worth adding no matter who it is with, even when verified. Short flings and other minor involvements can safely be left out. I don't see how anything under 6 months could reasonably be counted as a big deal unless it somehow leads to a quick engagement or conceiving/adopting children. A problem you regardless have been glossing over is that neither of them have so far indicated that the speculation and hearsay on them being a couple is true. We therefore shouldn't be so hasty to take gossip at face value per WP:BLPGOSSIP without commentary from involved parties or their representatives. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the discussion about this over at Talk:Justin Trudeau, but it seems the majority of the discussion is happening here. I thought it would be helpful to assemble the main sources we have currently about Trudeau and Perry:
My opinion: let's give it a few days at least. There's no rush to include celebrity gossip here. From what I'm reading, I think it's likely that a representative of Katy Perry will have something to say about all this media coverage, at which point it will be more widely reported in a less gossipy way. I think it's quite likely that this will warrant inclusion soon, but we're not depriving our readers of anything by leaving it out for now. MediaKyle (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When those links (except for Times of London) are basing reports on Daily Mail and/or TMZ, they're not adequate to meet WP:BLP requirements. I nevertheless agree with waiting for the moment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Forbes and Toronto Star explicitly acknowledge how neither party has said anything on the matter, that alone should be enough to prove such an addition would currently be premature. Either way, that Vanity Fair piece is written in a gossipy tone plus its credibility is undermined by using TMZ along with Daily Mail as a basis for claims. While a chef's comments to CBC News do prove that a dinner between them took place, that doesn't inherently guarantee people are exclusive or in something beyond a short-term relationship. One problem with National Post is that they to some extent are going off gossip-filled links that give flimsy-at-best bases of unnamed "sources", and in all honesty, that's a red flag due to the suspicious lack of transparency. Global News is just delving into speculation (which unfortunately isn't transparent either with the unnamed "sources" mentioned) and doesn't appear fully certain at the moment. Even if either of them at any point confirm being involved with one another, I still hesitate to add any relationship shorter than 6 months. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a gossip rag or a collection of every known relationship. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS is right. A date or fling doesn't mean it should be included in the article unless both people acknowledge the "relationship." Until then, it feels more like gossip and isn't necessary to include. 143kittypurry (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not our standard. The standard is whether it is Verifiable and whether or not it is published in Reliable Sources see WP:V and WP:RS. If anything, a primary source statement would be insufficient under Wikipedia rules. We do not need some sort of press release or statement from the parties stating that they are in a relationship. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Wellington Bay, primary source statements are fine for straightforward claims about oneself whenever there's no reasonable doubt of authenticity per WP:BLPSELFPUB. To take speculative and/or gossipy pieces at face value without anything that contains formal confirmation would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. You'd be hard-pressed to find any pages on living people with no citations at all relying on some degree of their own commentary on relationships and/or comments from past/present partners, and I've often seen relationship claims justifiably removed from other articles when using poor sources or those containing insufficient attribution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"primary source statements are fine for straightforward claims about oneself" - that's not actually my point. My point is that primary source statements are not required. Again, that's not our standard. What we require are secondary sources that are verifiable and reliable. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without confirmation from those labeled as "in a relationship," the information remains just gossip. Relationships are personal, and without direct confirmation from the individuals involved, these claims are not strong enough to be included in the article. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@143kittypurry what policy basis do you have for any of this? If direct confirmation from the individuals involved were required, enwiki would never document any relationship that one another partner found embarrassing. This is clearly not the case - you and SNUGGUMS seem to be opposed to including any mention of this topic until the parties "make it official", but your reason seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any policy-based rationale. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initial reports about this "relationship" came from TMZ and the Daily Mail. Later, other publications, including some credible ones, also published articles about it. However, there is NO direct confirmation from anyone involved. The only evidence available is photos, including some blurry ones taken by paparazzi. If you still believe this is significant enough to include in the article, then something is not clicking on your end. 143kittypurry (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to condescend others with the "not clicking" remark, 143kittypurry, even when disagreeing with someone's stance on a matter. Please don't say things like that again. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stop acting like including a sentence or two on this topic would be contravening any sort of BLP policy. I agree with the overall sentiment - we're an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag - but I'm seeing this on the front page of CBC now, and people are going to be looking for this information. I would suggest we start thinking about how to approach it. MediaKyle (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful not to overestimate the reliability of individual articles just going off gossip, hearsay, and speculation. Whether primary or secondary, any sourcing used should be more solid than things of that nature. This doesn't mean the mentioned news organizations (aside from TMZ and Daily Mail) are overall untrustworthy publications, just that some of their pieces are more credible than others, and we should take into account anything they use to base claims off of. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for more. As for front page mentions, I wouldn't assume that alone means something is worth adding into a Wikipedia page per WP:NOTNEWS, which partially states "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look closely at WP:GOSSIP and what Wikipedia is not and see if mentioning Perry/Trudeau violates it:
1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
No, this has been mentioned in major media so we are not engaging in original report.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
No, this is not routine news.
2. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
No, both individuals here are notable and we are not talking about a single event.
3. 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.
You still are downplaying the importance of the WP:BLPGOSSIP policy. Furthermore, your assessment carelessly ignores how gossipy it is for any publication to write out things along the lines of "_____ and _____ were kissing/eating dinner together, so that means they're a couple". I'm not going to pretend otherwise. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember how Forbes mentions that there actually is no formal confirmation so far when the involved parties haven't addressed speculation yet. That part shouldn't be glossed over, whether you personally trust my judgments or not. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done there so far doesn't appear to be any indication either of them or their reps have affirmed the two are exclusive, and regardless something under six months would be rather minor compared to other relationships discussed within the page (all well over a year long). We're not supposed to be a dating history website of all known non-platonic involvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you show no concern for the fact that citations attempting to be used for this are more often than not basing claims off of less trustworthy things like Daily Mail and TMZ. The most problematic use so far per WP:BLPGOSSIP was a piece from Us Weekly, which in itself is already a poor quality gossip rag, and got worse for taking TMZ at face value. We should look for citations not relying on those or flimsy attributions of unspecified "sources" where the lack of transparency is a suspicious element that undermines credibility. We have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for good reason, but evidently that doesn't matter to you when flat out disregarding nuances and caveats. I'm not going to sugarcoat how it would be quite gossipy and at best hasty to now add something about the two being a couple. Even if we had adequate sourcing with formal confirmation of a relationship that doesn't violate WP:BLP by containing sensationalism or mere speculation, there so far is no sign that they'll have anything beyond a short-term involvement, which honestly is minor in comparison to anything going past a year. Contrary to what you seem to believe, a firm verification of being exclusive wouldn't instantly guarantee it's worth adding when Wikipedia actually isn't meant to be a comprehensive account of all known non-platonic involvements per WP:NOTADIARY. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting very close to a WP:OWNWP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. Your comments concede they are dating but now you're moving the goalposts because somehow you don't think Perry dating a former world leader is notable because it's only been a few weeks and it may not last? A simple line acknowledging that they are dating is neither sensationalic nor a BLP violation or at this point gossip. It's been carried by some of the leading news sources in the world. Enough already with the gatekeeping. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my goal of wanting to avoid WP:BLP infringements is by no means the same thing as engaging in WP:OWN or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so your "gatekeeping" accusations are unfounded. Another thing I should make clear is I didn't actually "concede" anything, and instead was saying it's too soon to add text asserting they are an item. My point with WP:NOTADIARY that you don't appear to be taking seriously is we shouldn't automatically presume that any folks being together would mean it's encyclopedia-worthy, no matter what publications are talking about that. Wikipedia either way isn't a gossip rag or meant to be a dating history website. It's also not a place for minutiae, whether accurate or not, and any brief flings one has wouldn't really be a big deal nor should those be treated as such. This has nothing to do with somebody's title/occupations. Regarding the French links provided, as far as I can tell from what my translator gave me, it looks like they're suggesting that holding hands or having a meal in public are surefire signs of being exclusive. That admittedly comes off as presumptuous or at least gossipy in tone, though not relying on TMZ or Daily Mail is a welcome change of pace. Even if it did count as conclusive proof of that as opposed to just dining together for a specific night, that now would minimally make the page read like a diary entry. I thus am still inclined to refrain for now from such additions until there's evidence of there being more than just some type of short involvement, preferably with at least one of them and/or their reps unambiguously commenting on the matter at some point, which so far hasn't happened. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no diary here. No breathless recounting of what they had for dinner, what they were wearing, or what show they were seeing or any other details. Merely an acknowledgement of the fact that they have been dating, backed up by independent reliable sources as per policy. Your bar for inclusion is a personal one that goes far beyond WP:RS and WP:V and as stated above Paris Match and TF1 make no reference to TMZ in their reports. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you still are ignoring is how it's not ideal to use refs that jump to conclusions or just delve into unconfirmed speculation. I also wasn't just using a personal bar and the truth is I instead hope to avoid clutter of minor details. On another note, going out of your way to start any RFC was not at all necessary when those drag discussions out for too long. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are established Reliable Sources. You have been second guessing them (and the editors at these established media outlets) and thus going far outside of WP:RS in favour of your own personal goalposts. You may feel you have the expertise to second guess editors of the Times of London, the New York Times, The Guardian, the CBC, the Toronto Star, and now Paris Match and RF1 but frankly that is far beyond the writ of a Wikipedia editor. An RFC was necessary as you and another editor have been ignoring consensus in the earlier discussion and have been exercising ownership tendencies over this article in particular. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stretch to say there was "consensus" when you were the only editor prior to the RFC who outright insisted the claim was worth adding. MediaKyle wasn't so emphatic beforehand in such support. Unlike you, I was taking caution with additions instead of hastily rushing to insert things that often relied on TMZ/Daily Mail in some capacity. 143kittypurry has similar concerns that you brushed aside. It sounds like you're conflating a general reliability with being fully infallible; doing that would oversimplify things per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. At no point did any of us claim to be an expert. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been invoked: To be clear, as I said above, I already thought by 16 October that it would be reasonable to include something about this. I was trying to give you the opportunity to have input on the wording of what would inevitably end up in the article. By the time this RfC was created, I thought the answer was quite clear. I personally would suggest that you take a step back and see if any other editors share your views - you alone are not responsible for policing articles for what you perceive to be gossip. MediaKyle (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a consensus in the previous discussion about you including information from "credible" sources originally sourced from Daily Mail and TMZ. Just because the media discusses it a lot doesn't make it encyclopedic and suitable for the article. 143kittypurry (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"going out of your way to start any RFC was not at all necessary" - you and kittyperry kittypurry have shown exactly why it's necessary in this thread. That you both deny there was a consensus, despite evidence to the contrary, means it's necessary to test whether or not there is a consensus by having editors clearly stated support or oppose. An RFC is the best way to do that. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a prior thread of 2 against 2 with a fifth not-exactly-clear stance (the one from Newimpartial) consensus towards your side is self-serving and misleading. As for MediaKyle's false accusation of "policing articles", that downplays how I instead was attempting to avoid gossip and sensationalism. If anybody thinks I was being too cautious with references, then that's one thing, but please don't keep turning a blind eye to how it's problematic to use citations that are filled with hearsay and unconfirmed speculation on matters. Going on 2 or 3 sporadic dates is hardly the same thing as an official relationship. Another important thing to keep in mind that sourcing standards for living folks aren't as lenient as those for pages on deceased persons. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS I'm not sure that my position was all that obscure. My position was that the sourcing connecting the two of them was reliable and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" concerns expressed by two editors were (and they still are) ill-founded. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to some extent I misunderstood your comments from before (apologies for that), but I didn't get the feeling that whatever support you previously had for inclusion was very emphatic. Treating concerns against it as a mere case of "fruit of the poisoned tree" glosses over how inserting gossipy/speculative additions isn't ideal for BLPs. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the relationship has been widely reported on in several very reliable sources, and they've gone public. I wouldn't go writing a whole paragraph, but a short sentence wouldn't be undue given the high public interest in the subject. RachelTensions (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support multiple reliable international outlets ( for eg., Paris Match, TF1 ) have independently reports the relationship, meeting WP:RS and WP:V. A brief neutrally worded sentence acknowledging that Perry is dating Trudeau would be due and proportionate with out violating WP:BLP or adding gossips.... ThilioR O B O T🤖talk04:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is a no-brainer now - the sources are clear. We have more than enough reliable sources to be able to include one, or even two sentences about this. MediaKyle (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Multiple non-entertainment RSs have reported on this as being confirmed, so we can definitely have a sentence that they are dating, which wouldn't veer into WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE territory, especially since dating a former prime minister is going to get that extra, non-entertainment tabloid coverage of even minor aspects of the relationship like this from the CBC. [4] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just read the thread, and it's important to clarify that accusing us of having ownership issues is misplaced. @SNUGGUMS and I explained several times that it was too early to include this information, particularly since the original sources are TMZ and Daily Mail, which heavily relied on blurry paparazzi photos and "close sources". To suggest otherwise is misleading. I still believe this "relationship" is premature for inclusion. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a database of flings or dates. While Perry and Trudeau did go on a few dates, mentioning this in the article doesn't add significant value compared to other events in her life over the past few months. The number of sources you added to back this claim also appears to be an overkill. 143kittypurry (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is going "on a few dates" with a former world leader not notable, particularly when it has received coverage from leading news organizations around the world? (Hence the "overkill" you complain of. Somehow the entry is simultaneously too well sourced and insufficently sourced for inclusion?) Wellington Bay (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into those, Today show openly says "rumored couple", and this alone demonstrates it isn't as official as other publications might think. The piece also says reps have been reached for commentary. CNN doesn't seem fully certain and either way is (at least partially) going off the unreliable gossiper Pop Crave, making it hard to take at face value. The new links for The Daily Telegraph and Times of London are to some extent relaying other articles with suspiciously flimsy "source" attributions, and that's a red flag. Nevertheless, the effort to avoid things using TMZ and Daily Mail is appreciated for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The sources say they were seen/photographed spending time together, eating, holding hands, etc, but it's still rumor/speculation they are dating. Denaar (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The sources say they were seen/photographed spending time together, eating, holding hands, etc, but it's still rumor/speculation they are dating. even if they are, it isn't inherently encyc-significant until established over a significant period and publicly acknowledged. Until then it's basicly idle gossip and intrusive. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Even the reliable sources say it's a rumor. This is a clear case of something that doesn't belong in a biography of living person article. The closer should note the support votes that haven't addressed WP:BLPGOSSIP. For BLP we hold a higher standard of inclusion. Something simply being mentioned by a reliable sources doesn't automatically justify inclusion. Nemov (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — at least by now. Most, if not all articles deal with a rumored relationship. For a main BLP, this doesn't add anything, and the relationship doesn't impacted Perry's career.. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding a sentence about the dating. Reliable sources are saying they're dating:
* CBC - The former prime minister and the pop star recently made their first public appearance as a couple1
* Buzzfeed - Katy and Justin are, without a doubt, the strangest celebrity couple of the year so far2
* Fox News - Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau just took a major step in their relationship.3
* CNN - Justin Trudeau’s ex-wife...breaks silence on his romance with Katy Perry4
* BBC - Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry have made it official5
Oppose Coverage alone cannot be sufficient, particularly for WP:SENSATIONAL topics on a WP:BLP. I understand news outlets all want to be the first to break the news on this story, but I don't see multiple RSs explicitly stating that Perry and Trudeau are a couple. All the articles float around it with language like "seen holding hands," "rumored relationship," etc. Why the rush? WP:NOTNEWSPenguino35 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple change but it would be much better if the article title 'Secular music' is linked instead of linking the word 'Secular' and then adding the word 'music' in this article.
I would agree with you if the article Secular music was in better shape. It currently says Secular music and sacred music were the two main genres of Western music during the Middle Ages and Renaissance era. which might not quite fit for Katy Perry. MediaKyle (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MediaKyle Thats a good point but doesnt 'secular music' seem more appropriate than linking to the article 'Secular'? Katy Perry had nothing to do with anything along the lines of secularism but she is one of the most well knon secular music artists Malayalee from India (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Premature. Dating someone doesn't make them partners. While the term "partner" isn't well defined I would not call them partners without at least one of the following conditions being met: 1) co-habitation (Perry and Trudeau don't even live in the same country), 2) having a child together, 3) being in a long-term relationship (ie come back in a year). Wellington Bay (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2025
Not done: She has been known to date Trudeau, as already noted in the article. That information does not justify inclusion of Trudeau as a "relationship" in the Infobox. General IzationTalk 23:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2025
Montecito California home purchase by Perry for $15 million. Days after contract signing, former owner, Carl Westcott, a disabled army veteran sought to overturn the sale on mental health grounds. ~2025-42708-27 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done there so far doesn't appear to be any indication either of them or their reps have affirmed the two are exclusive, and regardless something under six months would be rather minor compared to other relationships discussed within the page (all well over a year long). We're not supposed to be a dating history website of all known non-platonic involvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)