Talk:Matthew Perry

6,000 AA Meetings? Yeah, I Highly Doubt That

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)

Requested move 14 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

---

• Matthew Perry → Matthew Perry (actor)Matthew Perry (actor)
• Matthew Perry (disambiguation) → Matthew Perry

– 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)

• Support: while the actor certainly has a lot more pageviews, the commodore has greater historical significance and is commonly known by both Matthew Perry and Matthew C. Perry. Also, both the commodore and actor have hatnotes to the dab page. According to Wikinav, the outgoing clicks from the dab page are split evenly between the actor and the commodore.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, obviously the clicks from the dab page will go against the actor. That dab page is mostly reached by people who have already ended up on the Matthew Perry page and specifically wanted something else, so every other item there will be inflated in views compared to the actor. That doesn't reflect how people are actually trying to find people of this name. Ladtrack (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PT1. While I appreciate that Matthew C. Perry has more significant long-term notability, ultimately, we want titles to lead to where the reader expects to land, and in this case, it is the article with almost 10k daily pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, but put the commodore in the hatnote. The actor has literally an order of magnitude more pageviews, and Friends is one of the most internationally successful shows ever, so American bias doesn't really apply (after all, there are 195 countries in the world and the actor is more important in almost all of them). The commodore probably does have more long-term significance (although it is worth noting that standard metrics of long-term significance are perhaps overly harsh on the arts). However, he is very often referred to with the middle initial, so many of the viewers of the article wouldn't even look for "Matthew Perry" to find him. As a result, if we did this, we'd probably end up disadvantaging about nineteen readers looking for the actor for every person that wants the commodore, who would still have to find the link on the disambiguation page. Instead of doing that, we might as well put him in the hatnote and help that one person out of twenty just the same. Ladtrack (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and add Matthew C. Perry to the hatnote. As others have stated above, the actor seems to be the primary topic but the naval officer is also important. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 10:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

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)

Cause of death

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)

To clarify the statement that is the most confusing is "Other circumstances that contributed to his death included the effects of ... drowning". ~2026-21781-52 (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

After reading it a few times, am I right to understand it as: while dying from respiratory failure from mixing a high dose of ketamine with opioids he lost consciousness and drowned, which only served to expedite his death? If so I think the text could be rephrased to be more easily understood. ~2026-21781-52 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. He slid into the jacuzzi and drowned. Why? Because the ketamine induced a state of unconciousness. ~2026-25306-20 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)