Talk:Matthew Perry

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 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.

Wikipedia

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada Low‑importance

Canada
portal

WikiProject
Canada

Canada
notice board

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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.

‹ The template below (Top 50 report) is being considered for merging with Top 25 report. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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.

‹ The template below (Top 25 report) is being considered for merging with Top 50 report. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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:

Matthew Perry: A Hollywood Tragedy

Should we mention the aforementioned documentary in the death section? 2600:100C:A20D:BB75:B852:C8FB:DF43:5726 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Perry photo

@Leikstjórinn I think removing the photo was uneccessary. I seriously do not understand the obsession with that photo. The quality is abhore and not at all professional, Perry looks awful too, it is both a misrepresentation to the man himself and to the people that watched him. It's him at his (presumably) worst due to his drug use. I am not here to argue however, there needs to be a consensus on the photo used.

Option A from 2013	Option B from 2012	something else option C

Stadt64 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option A is actually from 2012 while option B is from 2013. This is litterally from the same era, and out of the two A is pretty obivously better i think. The quality is better on A, the angle is better and he is also kinda awkward and has sunglasses on top of his head. How can you say that a picture from 2012 is him at his lowest while a pic of him from 2013 is much better. Leikstjórinn (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leikstjórinn Look at the guy. Option A, he looks terrible, while Option B he looks so much better, in my opinion. The quality in Option B is also a lot higher than Option A. Stadt64 (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer option B as I think the quality of the photo looks better. Suonii180 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Option B is better. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah i don't get how yall prefer B. Talk about quality are yall deadass rnn? I can count the pixels on picture 2 not on 1. Look at option B, he is awkward as shit obviously it was a photoshoot put together last minute, he has sunglasses in his hair looks he doesn't want to be there and looks really puffy in the face. Option A, he is shining yk he is smiling, the quality is better he is looking forward not kinda on the side like in option B. Remember that this is how people are going to be remembering the guy in the future, forever. This is litteraly the first pic that pops up in matthew perry pics on google. He looks like a walking a corpse on B Leikstjórinn (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate death article

Given the circumstances of his death leading to criminal charges, should we create a separate article on it? 2600:387:F:B11:0:0:0:B (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]