Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be bloc
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew Perry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| A news item involving Matthew Perry was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 October 2023. |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 17,882,508 views. |
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
| On 14 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Matthew Perry (actor). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
So really what's the rule here at Wikipedia when a bullshitter says some bullshit, then what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source" prints that bullshitter's bullshit, and now what? Are we all expected to fall on our faces and worship the bullshit that was printed in Wikipedia because some supposedly "reliable source" quoted the bullshitter's bullshit, and then published it in the encyclopedia?
Here because a Reddit post extracted this "fact" from this Article, shoved it into the face of community awareness and basically double-dog dared anyone to call "bullshit" which I am doing now. 6,000 meetings divided by 365 days in a year means doing one AA meeting a day for 16 1/2 years. He was an addict, and addicts are the least reliable group on the planet. You can tell when an addict is lying because their mouth is moving. Anyone that knows anything knows this, and again, so what are we supposed to do with this obvious load of bullshit? And this isn't just an average, run-of-the-mill addict either, given his long history of rehab, etc...
Okay, so here's the mandatory narrative I am apparently required to state because some Wikipedia Editors have trouble perceiving self-evident truths: "This Article would BE IMPROVED if this obvious line of bullshit were deleted from the Article, or at least were framed into some kind of believable context, such as "person X" (I have no idea who this guy is) who was known for making up extravagant lies and demonstrably false claims, once said "(x, y, and z)"." Sometimes I think the small minority that controls all mass communications intentionally floats these stupid little "facts" in order to test and find out the degree to which they are allowed to publish their lies and obvious bullshit unchallenged.72.180.111.79 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
– I feel that there is no PTOPIC for "Matthew Perry". The admiral (Matthew C. Perry) is a very important figure in modern Japanese history, since his expedition destroyed the Edo policy of isolationism. He is often referred to as both "Matthew Perry" and "Matthew C. Perry". The actor is of course quite famous, but I think that we need to keep in mind both recentism and Amerocentrism here (since this is a rare case where an American is more widely known outside of the US). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Matt Perry (rugby union) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
As a non-medical professional I think it could be better explained why drowning wasn't the cause of death - from what I can tell he lost unconsciousness and drowned but I might misinterpret the statement from the medical examiner? Is the case that he would've died anyways ("acute effects of ketamine") even if not for the drowning?
Cause we wouldn't really say that alcohol was the cause of death if a drunk driver drove of a cliff right? ~2026-21781-52 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.