Talk:Meg Ryan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tries here

Can anyone confirm or otherwise that Meg starred in a film, possibly tv film,the name of which eludes me, with Sting and Ian Hendry. Would have been ages ago possibly sixties/seventies. It was a Gangster style film. Newcastle gangsterland and possibly a London connection or vice versa, scuse the pun!! If not Meg then it might have been Melanie Griffith, whom I strangely used to confuse her with. Hope it was Meg as she was stunning at the time and very cute, both of which Melanie just doesn't fit into. Anyway, any info would oblige SiriusCanis 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)SiriusCanis

Grainy photo

Golly! That photo is kinda grainy. Can anyone get a better photo of her? —Frecklefoot 20:05, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can't help but comment on Meg Ryan's gawd-awful picture in her bio. Where did they dig that one up. She should sue ( or at least have her publicist update it :)) ) --2222 cheryl

I'm well aware of the difficulty that Wikipedia has with image: we can only use images which have been licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain. Her publicist won't be of much use here--no matter what photos she uses now for publicity we can't use because they're most likely copyrighted. A screen grab from a movie, however, is permissible under fair use and would probably be the best source for a new image. I don't have that capability for such a grab, so was just suggesting someone who does have that ability to grab a more recent image. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It can't just be a coincidence that the two photos posted for Meg Ryan are horrible. Why can't people use Wikipedia the way it's intended? Grow up, people. SteveG (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

photos --Winschmidt (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parkinson

Can't somebody add something about her being a rude and stubborn bitch on the old fella's programme? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.89.140 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Having just watched the interview on You Tube, it seems apparent to me that it was Parkinson who was being rude, not Ryan. It's hardly her fault that the man decided to go on the offensive from the start and enforce his prudish "morals" on her. She was clearly unaware that it's the "done thing" in the UK for celebs to snuggle up to Parky and kiss his backside - well done to Meg Ryan for having none of it. Guv2006 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I have also seen the video for the first time and I'm outraged and embarrassed by Parkinson. Until now, i'd always assumed from the editting footage shown on British TV and media opinion that it was Meg Ryan who was rude not Parkinson. He was extremely harsh to her, criticising her life, personality and especially the film. It's no coincidence that "Parky" has moved to ITV and has lost popularity. Actually, to be honest i've never liked him. He's nice and friendly (normally) but most the time he just compliments his guests non-stop and dithers around with poor questions.

I think the article should be ammended to represent the reality of the interview. Bobbyfletch85 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are people rewriting this article to make it more sympathetic towards Ryan? I've seen the interview, I saw in live on TV the day it aired and Meg Ryan was absolutely RUDE. She is supposed to be a professional. She's an actress, couldn't she ACT interested? You can't say in the article "He seems to lack tact throughout the interview". That is an opinion. That is not fact. I in fact saw the interview and was horrified and disgusted by her behaviour. And I don't even like Parkinson. I hate Parkinson. But this is not an article on him. It's an article on her. And the Parkinson section now contains some ridiculous POV statements. --Mezaco 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mezaco, that is YOUR POV. I saw the whole interview and in MY opinion, Parkinson was incredibly rude, becoming angry when Ryan didn't agree with his negative views on the film. It's crazy, what did he expect? He berated something she'd been working on for most of the year and she responded diplomatically, at the worst, you could say she was blunt. But I think she did well under the circumstances. From what i've heard from people have seen the entire interview, opinion is half and half - ultimately, a lot of people believe he was out of order. No conicendence that his popularity since then has plummeted. As such, I think this should be reflected in the article.

Bobbyfletch85 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Qite frankly, I thought that they were both quite rude to one another. I saw the interview on the night that it was aired and haved watched it since on Yu Tube. I think it important to quote what Parkinson thought of the interview, as it is important to establish what Ryan thought of the interview. Eagle Owl 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

Just personally, i still don't think that this notorious "Parkinson incident" - actually a minor one but greatly exagerrated by some British tabloids - deserves to be included into the Encyclopedic article about the internationally famous movie actress with 25-year (still continuing) career, full of much more important and famous things. However since somebody added it again anyway (to the Trivia section), i think the presentation of the event must be at least balanced. IMHO, the way how it was actually added, was not balanced however. It was quite a detailed presentation of the Parkinson's media claims, while the opinion and explanation of Ryan herself was just ignored. So i added the published Ryan's position (in her own words)... after all, isn't this article about Ryan?..(NOT Parkinson). Still, i think that this "Parkinson incident" does not deserve such an exagerrated attention. It may be pretty much OK for to discuss on some forums on Ryan's (or Parkinson's) fan sites... but for the informative encyclopedic article about Ryan, written for the "general educational purposes", it is simply unnecessary. I still think it would be a best solution to remove the notorious stuff at all. Regards - Old Donkey 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Owl, I whole heartedly support your decision to move the incident into the Trivia section, because in the broader context of Meg Ryan's career it IS a TRIVIAL incident. As you might well expect, I disagree with the inclusion of the Parkison quotation. In your statement above you seem to be justifying the inclusion of this material based upon your own personal sense of outrage over the interview and your OPINION that they were rude to one another. Wikipedia is based upon presenting FACTS, not OPINIONS. Remember WP:NPOV.

It may well be a fact that Parkinson said what he said, but that's his opinion. We COULD include the "opinions" of both parties, but there is a fundamental hurdle which cannot be overcome in this particular case. Parkinson has stated that she turned her back on the other guests - a clear misrepresentation of facts. I don't see her doing that anywhere in the videotape. Do you? Did I miss something? On this count, in particular, Parkinson's statement is libellous, and should not be included based on WP:BLP. In order to maintain nuetrality neither of there inflamatory remarks warrant inclusion.

As to whether or not he was rude or she was rude is not for us to say - what defines rude? Is it a British standard or an American standard? By American standards, his treatment of her is absolutely deplorable. If a talk show host in this country treated a guest in that manner, he'd probably be given the boot mighty quick! Journalistic standards in the US are also very different from the UK. US journalists would undoubtedly treat the aftermath of this situation quite differently. I think it is best to steer clear of opinions and perceptions, and just stick to the fatcs.

With all due respect, this incident may have been quite prominent in Great Britain - but it did not achieve any world wide publicity. In the context of her lengthy film career and the global media coverage that has received, this is entirely inconsequential. I am not adverse to his quote appearing in the article about HIS SHOW as long as the facts are included as well. Please, put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's just say, for example, that I added a section to Parkinson's biography that discussed an appearance he made THREE YEARS AGO on the Rikki Lake Show - and I added derogatory statements Lake made about him. (just pretend) Don't you think that British reader's would be saying "Who the hell is Rikki Lake?" "Why on earth is THIS in his bio?" I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

Regardless, although Wikipedia serves a global audience, it is an American Corporation. The policy guidelines pertaining to LIBEL are based upon American legal standards. There are ethical standards which need to be maintained here. If we KNOW something is libellous, we can not and should not try to "sneak it in there" in the form of a quotation. I am revising the section based upon UNDUE WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'll be glad to discuss it further, if you wish. Cleo123 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the things that you are saying Cleo123, and respect your views, and that the way they treated each other was bad, but I did add some perfectly sourced information on how the interview was ranked number 3 of the most surprising television moments, as it is directly linked to Ryan herself. I don't see why that should be taken out. And also I previously added what Parkinson thought of the incidents, we all have our own views on the incident, but why remove something that Parkinson stated himself on the incident? It is not something I made up, it is what he thought of the incident, but as I said, it is so important to add what Ryan thought of the events, as Old Donkey added but without a citation. I'll try and find a reliable source. Many thanks Eagle Owl 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

I have since found a reliable source on what Ryan thought of the events. It now, presents both aspects of what each member thought. Again, many thanks Eagle Owl 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

Eagle Owl, you say that understand what I am saying, but your recents edits are inconsistent with an understanding of the policy issues I am citing as my rationale. This is a WEIGHT issue. Parkinson is an obscure figure and is NOT NOTABLE on a GLOBAL scale. If her interview with Oprah Winfrey, who is certainly notable on a global scale, only gets one sentance, why would the level of detail you are attempting to insert be warranted?

It seems to me that you are attempting push a point of view here that runs contrary to the consensus which had previously been reached on this page regarding this incident. I'm concerned that you are pushing a point of view here. The source that you have added for Meg Ryan turning her back is a website which quotes Parkinson. Please, tell my self and all the other editors on this page where in the video taped interview you see Meg Ryan doing this? It appears that you are attempting to insert something that is clearly false into the article. Another source you have provided in the Daily Mail. If I'm not mistaken that is a tabloid and does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Upon closer scrutiny, the poll which you are referencing was conducted as part of an advertising promotion for an obscure talk show. How can that be considered reliable?

I am reverting your edits. Please, argue your case for the inclusion of this material to the other editors on this page who had acheived consensus on this issue. Why would the Parkinson interview warrant more editorial space than the Ophrah Winfrey interview? How is this more relevant and worthy of more verbage than some of her films? Cleo123 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There're several things bothersome about this discussion. I see folks frequenting citing WP policies, yet through the comments demonstrate a lack understanding about what they're citing. Against WP:AGF, Eagle Owl is being accused of pushing a POV. There's an implication that source which quote Parkinson should not be used because there is a "WEIGHT issue", but it's almost trivial to verify numerous third-party sources that interpret this event negatively towards Ryan, yet most if not all verifiable sources that are pro-Ryan quote Ryan herself--which by that logic should be excluded then because they quote Ryan. In short, these reasonings are self-contradictory and are not supported by (and in fact are alarming misinpretations of) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

Notability was cited as an issue, what about the fact then the event was obviously well-cited in the British press. Clearly many here haven't read WP:N, which quite explicitly states: *** "General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works". *** That guideline cannot be emphasized enough, yet are glaringingly ignored here. There's a high amount of subjectivity and consequent disregard for WP:N throughout the discussions on this talk page. One cannot watch the video and interpret for themselves what Parkinson meant when he stated Ryan turned her back on other guests. I have seen the entire video and thought he meant it figuratively--e.g. when another woman complimented Ryan's shoes and Meg Ryan basically went un-huh and ignored her, which can certainly be construed as rude and "turning her back". Does it matter? No because that's my interpretation. Another editor may watch the video and opine Ryan acknowledged her. Similary, no one's interpretation that Ryan didn't turn her back matters. Positive contributions to Wikipedia are made by concentrating on VERIFIABLE PUBLISHED FACTS: e.g. it's a verifiable published fact that Parkinson stated Ryan turned her back on other guests. The videos are then all there for everyone to judge whether Parkinson was justified to make that statement. Please keep in mind _interpretations_ of those videos should be left for tabloids and message boards, regardless of how justified one may consider them to be.

In any case, in the grand scheme of Meg Ryan's career I do agree the less stated about the incident the better: It belongs better on the Parkinson page. That said, I'm going to remove the last sentence: "The interview caused a bit of a stir in the press, where both Ryan and Parkinson were accused of being rude to one another." as it's uncited + clearly violates WP:WEASEL ("a bit of stir", who said that? who determines "a bit") as well as WP:NOR and WP:V (what source determined they were "both...being rude to one another"? If it's just the opinion of the wiki editors, regardless of apparent validity, that does not belong). Hopefully this should close the issue, and editors who wish to expound on the matter can easily click on one more link to head to the Parkinson (TV show) wiki page. Tendancer 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear colleagies - the Editors... IMHO, whatewer we are trying to do, the main "deficiency" of the description still stays in the text. And will stay there despite any "editing efforts" about this notorious "Parkinson interview". Why, you may ask? Just because of that incident - actually minor "in the grand scheme" of Ryan's career - simply doesn't deserve to be included into this encyclopedic article, written for "general educational purpose" as a general description of the 25-year (and continuing) carrer of the internationally famous movie actress. Today Cleo123 - when mentioning Opra - made a really good point btw. Please just think... Ryan gave a LOT of interviews during her career... some were in much more well known and "influental" (at least in US) shows then the Mr. Parkinson's show is. Whether all these Ryan's public appearances had a bad press and some "scandalous aroma"? Obviously not. So WHY all those interviews - picturing Ryan in neutral or positive light - must not be mentioned in the article, but her Parkinson appearance (that presented her in negative light just by SOME British tabloids, with what many people BTW were and still are disagree) "MUST" be so necessarily mentioned there??... I think it is quite illogical, and even potentially misleading for the readers of the article. Such a "selective" (for not to say "biased") access - to mention [in Trivia section!] only one "negative" interview, just ignoring "the bigger picture" - may easily prompt the unaware reader to think that the ill-fated "Parkinson incident" really represents the general "style and state of relationships" between the media and Ryan, still actual until this day... that would be just plain wrong and factually incorrect. That's why i am still convinced that such an exagerrated attention to this "Parkinson incident" - and its inclusion into the article in any form - just gives the undeserved "weight" to the factually minor incident just exagerrated by some tabloids, but generally irrevelant to the Ryan's significance in the cinema and its history (the actual reason why she deserves an article in Wikipedia). If there would be any "voting", i would still vote for removal it from the Trivia and from the article itself. Regards! - Old Donkey 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a trivial point and works well under trivia rather than a large chunk. Whilst it did have a significant effect on her career, particularly in Britain and Europe, the essence of the incident is ambigious as to whom is the focus: Meg Ryan or Michael Parkinson - Keep it Trivia. Bobbyfletch85 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, added it to trivia as I thought it worked better there, as really it isn't anything to do with her career as such. I hope now that any minor conflicts over the content on this page are sorted. Many thanks Eagle Owl 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

Further to what I said earlier, Ryan was a guest on Parkinson's show. As a guest she should have been treated cordially and with respect, and not be subject to a tiresome old duffer wagging his finger in her face. Ryan is an internationally respected actress; Parkinson is the Queen Mum of British TV - an irrelevance - a dried up old fart who needs putting out to grass. His ego and pompousness are tiresome in the extreme.

Guv2006 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

Why is there no mention or a picture about the surgeries that ruined her face? She looks like a different person now. Lapinmies 09:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Meg Ryan actually had any plastic surgery; it seems rather as a tabloid stuff. This surgery rumor was actually launched after Toronto film festival in Sept 2003 - when a few pix of Ryan (from Sept 9) were published with her lips and cheeks seeming unusually "puffy". It was just a few "bad pics", and on many other pics done just the SAME DAY (!) - or after a few days - Ryan looked absolutely normal. But (quite naturally...) almost nobody in the media noted this... because of nobody wanted! What "sales", is rather a sensation titles like "Meg Ryan is not Meg Ryan anymore!". So alas these few unlucky bad pics happened to be more then enough for printed and internet tabloids to "launch the sensation". Moreover, since that Sept 2003 hundreds of Ryan's photos were published everywhere (paprazzi, public appearances, interviews, etc.) - and everywhere she looks pretty normal. You can try to go to "Yahoo search", type "Meg Ryan", and check the photos from last 2 years. You will see yourself. Or, you can go here (be attentive please - the link is very long): http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c7%7c%7c%22Meg+Ryan%22%7c1125084063323127%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=7&tag=1 There are 700+ photos of Ryan, many recent ones, and with exact date - including that "ill-fated" day Sept 9 2003 in Toronto, they all (both normal-looking and a few "puffy" pictures) are there too. A huge majority of these photos shows Ryan looking pretty normal. I think it all definitely confirms that this notorious "plastic surgery" of Ryan actually never happened; it's just one more tabloid fantasy, nothing more. Everybody can be "captured" by an avid photographer - who tries hard! - with unusual face expression; especially the people like Ryan (a celebrities for whom the photographers really hunts, and sometimes specially waits for a moment to make some "unusual" photo). But naturally such a picture, even if published and persistently circulating, is not yet a proof of some "unsuccessful plastic surgery" that the person as if had  :) Old Donkey 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has a serious case of Meg Ryan love, and is denying the obvious look of her face in ALL her recent movies. Just check out the interview LINKED IN THIS ARTICLE... look at those lips. The woman is chasing youth and looks terrible for it. She was a beautiful woman who should have been able to age gracefully, but it would seem that something (quite likely her divorce) has taken a toll on her self esteem/self image to the point she felt she needed the work. I feel very sorry for women who destroy natural beauty with horrendous fake images of it. --Spoco2 04:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone is having a tendency to proclaim personal beliefs, speculations and impressions in such a manner as if it's an "obvious" fact - while it is not. Naturally I'll not try to "reconvene" anybody; especially anybody who is predjudicially and pretty firmly convinced in something. For those who are interested to build some unbiased opinions of their own I'd rather simply suggest to check (for example) the page http://megryaninfo.com/media.php (that's a part of the website linked in this article) and watch the videoclips of Ryan provided there. There are interviews, public appearances, movie fragments etc; some old, some pretty recent (i.e. well after the alleged "surgery" - if to assume that it was). The "Video" section in the Google search engine provides even larger selection. It seems certain from comparing this video material that the notorious "surgery" actually just never was and Ryan's face still looks not "destroyed", "horrendous", "faked" etc. but just normal - with no signs of surgical intrusion... doesn't matter how many times the "tabloid" sort of media repeated the opposite... Old Donkey 14:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub

This page is still listed as a stub. Don't you think it's long enough to remove the tag yet? Coemgenus 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we add what Parkinison said on the matter?:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1153923.htm --Greasysteve13 09:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Heritage

What is her heritage? Michael 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I know she was raised Catholic, but as for the ethnicity run-down - not sure. Probably nothing too out there. Mad Jack 07:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find it anywhere... Michael 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She is definitely Irish on her mother's side. I believe her father is of Scandanavian heritage. Cleo123 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ...In the first "chapter" of the article, one of her names - "Anne" - was not mentioned... so i added it. Regards - Old Donkey 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the name Anne several times. The reason I have done this is that it is not part of her "birth" name. Anne is her confirmation name, which is not part of her "legal" name. Cleo123 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123, many thanks for clarification! - i didn't know this. Still, maybe it is worth to mention this detail somehow in the article - just as one more factual detail - that her confirmation name is "Anne"?... What do you think?... Regards! - Old Donkey 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Political

...It seems for me that to describe her as "outspoken liberal" would be a bit "too definite", and thus not much exact. Actually her political opinions and activities seems much more moderate then the behavior of many other, really "politically active" modern celebrities... especially from the "liberal camp". Particularly, Ryan apparently didn't show much enthusiasm to join public campaigns - quite popular in Hollywood - against the US actions in Iraq. During one of her interviews she refused at all to present her opinions on Iraqi topic, answering in a very short way that she is, just personally, a "woman of peace", but refuses to be politically "used". It is definitely true that she tends to support the Democratic party... especially, its ecology protection policy. However she seems not really radical but rather a centrist. Initially she supported not Kerry but General Wesley Clark; in Oct 2003 Ryan donated $2000 for his election campaign. Only somewhat later, when in 2004 it became apparent that not Clark but John Kerry goes to became the 2004 Democratic candidate, she supported him (with another $2000). Also, it seems worth to consider that Ryan played some roles that some other, really "outspoken" liberal stars of the modern Hollywood, most probably would rather just deny (as "militaristic", or so) - like the pilot of military helicopter in Iraq in the "Courage under fire" for example. IMHO, all this information rather suggests to describe Ryan's "political face" in the "moderate way". Like this: "Apparently, Ryan is not much politically active, but it is known that she tends to support the US Democratic Party, especially its ecology protection programs and initiatives. In 2003 she supported General Wesley Clark's campaign, and later in 2004 she supported Joghn Kerry during the National elections". I made this correction in the article. Regards! - Old Donkey 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Parkinson "Section"

I've edited this article quite a few times before and had always just accepted the Parkinson section as accurate. I finally watched the interview and have done some digging, which leads me to think this incident does not warrant the amount of space it has been allotted. I, for one, didn't realize that this interview took place in 2003, yet Wikipedia is giving it the space that might be allotted to a current event.

Seriously! The woman gave an interview THREE YEARS AGO with some British journalist that didn't go well - who cares??? Why ON EARTH would (or should) 50% of her biography be devoted to this??? In reviewing the edit history for this article, I find it very telling that this "SCANDALOUS" interview was never mentioned in the article back in 2003 when it actually happened. This may have been a "sensation" in the British tabloids, but it definitely was not "World News." Only in the spring of 2006 does the article suddenly contain a Parkinson "section".

I am seriously concerned by the number of articles I am finding on WIkipedia where entire "Sections" have been added to legitimate articles, detailing trivial TABLOID material with links to UTube. I am concerned that UTube is using Wikipedia to promote their site. I wish administrators would take a closer look at this. I've seen it in too many biographies and I'm concerned that this is a form of "spamming" by UTube.

As for the interview itself, I found Wikipedia's coverage to be VERY misleading and DEFAMATORY. To read this article, one would think that Ryan was rude to Parkinson. I saw something very different in the tape. Parkinson was rude, combative and judgemental of Ryan from the very moment she walked on, warnning her not to sit in his chair. (Very ironic, in light of the outcome!) It seemed to me that she was very rightfully embarrassed and humiliated by his inappropriate conduct, but did her best to answer his questions and do what she was there for - promote the film. Unfortunately, she ended up having to "defend" the film and herself. I saw a celebrity who was humiliated and embarrassed, but NOT rude.

Regardless, this is a MINOR incident associated with a minor film in Ryan's career. It does not warrant the space it's been given. The incident is FAR in the past and Ryan should not be "HAUNTED" by it for all eternity because a few editors on WIkipedia don't want to "let it go" - believing it deserves "news coverage" for three plus years! I am going to pare this WAY down. In the context of her "life's" biography it is inconsequential. Rather than having a "Parkinson" section - Wikipedia should have "Career" and "Personal Life" section, as is the norm for most celebrity biographies.

I'll be glad to discuss the matter with any editors who wish to express an opinion. Cleo123 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more information about Ryan's ACTING CAREER, which is what she is NOTABLE for and WHY her biography is included in Wikipedia in the first place. I've tried my best to add some sense of balance and focus to this article. I hope some other editors will pick up the ball and run with it. She's an actress. Let's write about her work! Cleo123 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123, i do agree and support completely your opinion and position about this Parkinson stuff. Regards - Old Donkey

Cleo123, the purpose of this page is not to defend celebrities from negative media! By removing the entire section, and also judging from your comments above, you are showing a ridiculously pro-Ryan bias which I don't understand. It's not your job to PROTECT her, it's our job as editors to explain major events in a person's biography. The Parkinson interview was, like it or not, a bigger event in her career than some of movies (like In the Cut, IQ, etc).

Why not remove the fact that she had a falling out with her mother then? Isn't that inconsequential?? What does THAT have to do with her work? What about the fact that she attended Saint Pius X Elementary School when she was a CHILD??

I saw the interview too, live on TV back in 2003, and although I hate Parkinson, I was STUNNED and SHOCKED and how rude she was. I have never seen a celebrity so grumpy and angry and acting like a diva! Even when he wanted to know what she would have done if she had not done acting, she muttered journalism and wouldn't elaborate. How on EARTH can you she wasn't rude?

Meg Ryan has had a LOT of bad press over the years, from her affair with Russel Crowe while being married, to her falling out with the mother, to the Parkinson debacle, and most of Ryan's bad press is SELF-INFLICTED!! Shouldn't her bad media image at least get a mention here?

It's NOT your job to defend her and remove anything negative about her. Can't we still have an unbiased SHORT Parkinson section? --Mezaco 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mezaco, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I think you may be misinterpreting my actions here. I am simply trying to work towards an unbiased and balanced article, not trying to censor negative material. If you will review the edit history of my contributions to this article, you will see that I have ALSO contributed some negative information about Ryan into the article. For example, I am also the editor who originally added the section about her estrangement from her mother and her mother's book "The Immune Spirit". Her estrangement from her mother has in fact received YEARS of media coverage and is a significant negative media "event" in her career.

I have not omitted all mention of the Parkinson incident. It still has its own paragraph. I simply do not feel that it warrants an entire section. Let's face it, Wikipedia is a source of entertainment for many editors. When this obscure interview (and from a global perspective, it IS obscure) had its own section, there was alot of edit warring and vandalism on the article. To me that it a sure warning sign that a section doesn't belong - because it had become a platform for POV wars. If it was a current event, it may be justifiable, but this happened three years ago and has proven itself to be unworthy of continued media coverage.

I do not see Meg Ryan as having a "negative media image". This may have been a "big deal" in Great Britain 3 years ago, but it wasn't world news. The woman has probably given 100's of interviews. I can see no rational reason why one that went badly (and it REALLY didn't go THAT badly) warrants an entire section of the article. By giving it an entire section, the article no longer presented a NUETRAL point of view. Meg Ryan is loved by the American Media. Parkinson would appear to be the ONLY interviewer who has ever had a problem with her, which is why the incident doesn't deserve its own section.

You obviously feel very passionately about this. It would appear, however, that the majority of editors who have commented on this page see Parkinson as having been rude to Ryan, not the reverse. I have tried to present a balanced and nuetral point of view in the article. I would suggest that you go back and watch the ENTIRE interview again with an open mind. It was clear to me in watching it that Parkinson MADE her feel uncomfortable right from the get go. He interrupted her answers repeatedly and his questions were argumentative, critical and combative. It was only in the last two minutes of the interview that she gave a few one word answers and to me it appeared that she was just very uncomfortable and embarrassed. Please, go back and give the interview another look. You'll see that she DID discuss studying journalism at NYU. She didn't just "mutter" journalism. I suspect that Ryan may not have been watching the rest of the program in the Green Room and, therefore, was not prepared for Parkinson's first question. It, unfortunately, got off to a bad start and it was all down hill from there!

Please, give the interview another watch. If you still feel that the paragraph is inacurrate, feel free to add to it. I just don't think that an entire section is warranted. As always, I am open to discussion. Thanks!Cleo123 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I only added St. Pius X School as a way of introducing her confirmation name into the article, as was suggested by Old Donkey. I don't see it as being particularly important. I do see it as interesting, however, that she attended school in the same place that the "negligent" mother who supposedly "abandoned her" taught the sixth grade! LOL Cleo123 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cleo, Thanks for your thoughts. We'll just have to just agree to disagree on the whole issue. Maybe yes, the Parkinson section got a bit long as people kept adding their two cents.

Quite frankly, Michael Parksinson has probably interviewed thousands of celebrities over about the past 30 years and he has probably interviewed virtually every famous person in the world. And for him to say Meg Ryan is his most difficult celebrity EVER to interview is quite something. But that's just me.....

If Wikipedia articles can't contain anything not linked directly to their careers they should just be list of movies then with no mention of marriage, divorce, etc! But anyway, I'm won't re-add it or make any changes to this article. So thanks again for your nice reply! --Mezaco 17:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123, i read with true interest both yours and Mezaco's argumantation, and just wanted to note that i'm still definitely agree with your position. Like it or not, Ryan IS a Big Actress, who already "made her mark" in the history of movies and the pop culture, and continues to work quite actively on many projects. This movie In The Cut is generaly considered as quite a "minor" one in her record; and this notorious Parkinson interview - that should serve to promote it - was even much more "minor" event: just a particular public appearance that just SOME people disliked and estimated "in negative light" for Ryan. Obviously no big deal at all "in the scale" of the actress' 25 year (!) career... and i can't see any reason why this minor episode must be included - especially as a "Section" (!) - into the Encyclopedic (!) article about such actress. I saw this interview too, and my impressions coincides with yours one. I think it was clearly Mr. Parkinson who provoked the aroma of tension and hostility. He treated Ryan in disrespectful, quite "sarcastic" manner; it was especially obvious when she gave the answers of her own - not those ones that he wanted to hear from her. He impolitely interrupted her answers many times (that the interviewer must NOT do at all i think; as it is normally assumed that the interviwer asks the questions for to get the ANSWERS!) In my view, it all gave Ryan a "full license" to feel offended and react accordingly. Still, she behaved as a true lady in the situation, avoiding any real rudeness but just politely refusing to "cooperate" with the offender and "dance for his tunes"; no more, no less. I saw nothing scandalous, rude, or inadequate in her reactions and behavior; and consider these notorious media phrases like "Disasterous Parkinson interview" as one more bizarre newest "urban myth". I definitely agree that the Wikipedia exists not for to "defend celebrities" in any way. However, for sure it also does not exist for spread the urban myths and to trash and "label" (publicly!) the people - celebrities or not - in the sins they were not actually guilty of. Regards - Old Donkey 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see the Parkinson section has been removed because it did not deserve a section of its own. It was just one interview and the interview was not even as bad as was claimed. The reputation of this interview has been exaggerated in the media and on websites more than enough. She may be a difficult person to interview, but there are plenty of nice interview with her too. - Tam.

School

Cleo123, you wrote recently: "...I do see it as interesting, however, that she attended school in the same place that the "negligent" mother who supposedly "abandoned her" taught the sixth grade!". Some articles that i read claimed that the "estrangement" between Meg Ryan and her mother Susan had "two stages" so to speak... Accordingly to the claims, the relationships between them became "strained" the first time after Susan divorced her father. But the conflict between the mother and daughter became really principal and sharp somewhat later, when Susan strongly disagreed (and expressed it publicly) with Meg's marriage with Dennis Quade. Can't guarantee that it all is exactly right of course! - just remembering that story being presented in some articles in this way. If correct, it may explain how it happened that Meg attended that school... as it was yet before the "sharp phase" of the conflict... Regards! - Old Donkey 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Old Donkey! The media's misrepresentation of this is exactly what I was driving at! So many articles present the view that she was abandoned as a child by her mother, when that can not possibly be true. My understanding is that her mother was instrumental in helping her land her first big movie role. Yes, her mother may have moved out when she was a teenager, but they were obviously still close in some way.

The real "estrangement" between them seems to have happened much later in life over the Dennis Quaid incident. It's a terrible shame, really. [User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Cleo123, thanks for your kind reply! My understanding of this estrangement problem certainly matches yours one... so can only add that i'm sharing your hopes too! :) A question... A few days ago, www.megryaninfo.com posted a paparazzi image of Meg Ryan "going to Church" (without further detalization). So, she visits church; it seems interesting for me - as many other Hollywood celebrities seems rather "secularists". Would be interesting to know what a church it is?... Possibly a Roman Catholic one? If i remember it right, Meg Ryan is a Roman Catholic - by confirmation.. but she also showed some certain interest to Buddhism... Please do you know more?.. Regards! - Old Donkey 08:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a Catholic Church, but I do know she goes to a church in LA - with both her children - on a regular basis.

Tamara, thank you for answering my question... I know of course about the conflict - "in general". Old Donkey 15:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

Hi to all! I modified the "Filmography" section a bit... please review and check. Some Meg Ryan's movie and TV projects - that were not mentioned - are added. Also, i found that the "Tortilla Curtain" is not mentioned anymore as her "scheduled project" on MegRyaninfo.com; and there was no any "positive news" in the media - probably for already 2 years or so - suggesting that this movie project will ever be done (or at least that Meg will be involved in it). So, at these circumstances it seemed for me as reasonable to remove the "Tortilla Curtain" from the "listing". Regards! - Old Donkey 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch! Best Regards, Cleo123 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123, thank you for looking! :) Now, please what do you think about the film "Papa"? Did you hear any "positive news" during the last year, somehow confirming that this project is still "alive and scheduled" and with Meg Ryan participating? I did not... So, maybe it is reasonable to remove it now from the filmography too?... Best Regards! - sincerely, Old Donkey 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Current subjective estimations" in the text of the article (appropriate or not?...)

Hi to all! A comment has been added to the "Meg Ryan" article, that says: "Unfortunately, her attempts to recast herself outside of romantic comedies have not fared well, resulting in other actresses dominating the genre in her place. Where formerly critics compared actresses to Ryan favorably, (ie, "Reese Witherspoon is the new Meg Ryan"), now the comparisons follow the line of "Meg Ryan was the old Rachel McAdams."

It just seems a disputable question whether it is worth to include into the article such a comment - at least now (when Ryan is only 45 and btw works more actively now then in several previous years) - or not... I'm somehow under impression that these quoted statements rather represents some subjective personal opinions of some journalists - certainly shared by some part of public and media but certainly not shared by other part (see, for example, very recent article: http://article.wn.com/view/2007/02/16/Queen_of_love_Only_Meg_Ryan/ ) Thus, as it seems the quotes of critics added to the "Meg Ryan" Wikipedia article rather represents just somebody's "personal estimations of the moment".

Are such estimations principally important in Ryan's career, and can they be considered as needed for accurate and exact description of this career?

I doubt this... particularly because of Ryan is now apparently in the "new boost" phase of her career - being involved in several projects for this and next year (including romantic comedies she's so famous in)... and moreover, part of the public and press (see the link) still consider her as a "queen of the romatic comedy" whose status, won in 90s, still nobody truly "inherited" yet. I think at least several more years must pass before - maybe - the "time will came" for any more or less definite judgement on such a question as who (if anybody) will "dominate" the genre "after" Meg Ryan - in such a degree as she dominated it since 1990. Considering all this, i think it is reasonable to remove the newly added quotes from the "Meg Ryan" Wikipedia article. Please, any comments from other Editors are welcomed. Kind Regards! - Old Donkey 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the material, which was strictly POV. I couldn't even find the material in the provided source, which appeared to be an Internet Message board. It is opinion and to print it in her biography could be detrimental to Ryan's career. I've removed it in accordance with WP:BLP. Best Regards, Cleo123 05:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!! First, I did not see the Parkinson chat. Pity for I cannot stand the over-rated non talent. Would have loved seeing him put down though that might yet be for the vet! Anyway can someone please verify if Meg was in a movie I saw on tv years ago, the name of which eludes me. She was with Sting I am sure (if not then another pop Icon)and Ian Hendry among other Brit actors. Story based in the Newcastle gangster world and may also have a London Gangster connection. Would love to see it again as it was pretty good and Meg was stunning, also very cute being so young at the time. Thanks for any help.SiriusCanis 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)SiriusCanis 21:46 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Political support information (reference)

One of the editors asked for the sources of information about Meg Ryan's political preferences and 2004 support for General Wesley Clark... here it goes: http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Meg_Ryan.php Best regards! - Old Donkey 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cap088.JPG

Image:Cap088.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Edwards

I am sure that Meg Ryan was married to Anthony Edwards before she was married to Dennis Quaid. I don't know if it was before or after TOP GUN. Can anyone confirm this information? ZaneyJaney (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they weren't married... Yes, some (rather "tabloid"-type) media really claimed that Anthony Edwards was a "boyfriend" of Meg Ryan (i remember that too... it was in mid-80s); but for sure they were never married. Old Donkey (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AFI Top 10 romantic comedies

It is interesting to note that in the list of AFI Top 10 romantic comedies of all time, only two people have more than one film - Katherine Hepburn and Meg Ryan have 2 of their films listed [1] Mahesh69a (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain Planet and the Planeteers

Meg did the voice of Dr. Blight in this series for 10 episodes during 1990-91 Mahesh69a (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prufrock anyone???

Why is there no mention of the beginning and closure of Prufrock pictures? Also, there is no mention of her being on the jury of Cannes Film Festival in 2003 - I am not sure if this information was ever included in her page Mahesh69a (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about what Richard Corliss said?

In 1995, critic Richard Corliss called her the "the current soul of romantic comedy." This is more like an advertisement to Richard Corliss. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against him. But, in her career, so many critics have given many opinions of her best work - why is this particular statement singled out?

Personally, I would like it if this statement were removed from the article. 209.184.240.68 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Does not reflect the impact of Meg Ryan

I feel that the introduction part of this article does a lot of injustice to her work - box-office is not a great criterion to measure the worth of an artist - think of a romantic comedy in the late 80s and 90s and the first name that comes to mind is Meg Ryan - I think this entire article does not do any justice to her popularity world-wide 209.184.240.68 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ms Ryan had a couple of hit pictures, none were really good ("Harry Sally" clearly being the best of the bunch), although a few of her romantic comedies were minor trendsetters (in a warmed over Woody Allen-Neil Simon manner). She made far too many films given her limited success, which would have been OK if she was a really strong actresss or comedianne, but alas was neither. Being cute, with some funny faces doesn't make her a Goldie Hawn, who at least made some really fine films, but also along with way too many uninteresting pics and boringromantic comedies. But Meg was no Goldie in the end, even if both ended up with disappointing careers overall. I only spent such length here because this article is just about right, if not TOO LONGWINDED about a mediocre career from the mid 1990s onward, which is a decade and a half of duds, and a couple of decent hits at the beginning of her film career. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.3.135 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My Mom's New Boyfriend

I think this movie went straight to DVD as they could not find distributors. I am not sure if the movie "The Deal" was taken up by any distributors either. Mahesh69a (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal Name

"Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra (born November 19, 1961), professionally known as Meg Ryan"

So she her legal name is not Meg Ryan and this is only for public ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.151.13 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo (???)

I wonder what regularly happens about her photos in the article? They are posted - and removed... and those that are posted are certainly not the best and most characteristic photos of her, that would be good for such article. Can we find some really good, characteristic, "classic" photo of her for it?... She is a A-list star with probably thousands of photos available... or i don't understand something?... Old Donkey (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is EXTREMELY uptight about showing photos that are likely to be copyrighted (which means just about any photo of her taken by a professional photographer...movie stills, publicity photos, etc., etc.). That's why it's hard to get any decent photos of famous actors on Wikipedia. The result of their policy means that on those rare occasions when a photo of a famous person actually does appear in Wikipedia, it's usually a poor-quality amateur snapshot, typically taken at a public appearance or when a "regular" person with a camera happens to come across the celebrity while out in public. Personally, I think Wikipedia is being way over-cautious in this respect, but that's how they want to play it. Captain Quirk (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone, thank you very much - IMHO your new photo of Meg Ryan, that you used to replace the previous one in the article, is excellent and really much better then the previous one. So now, my question is: is it worth at all to keep the previous photo in the article? It certainly doesn't belong anyway to the "Hit Films" section (where it is now); and generally, IMHO, anyway it is simply not a very "characteristic" photo of Ryan, and not even a really good one. Maybe it is worth to replace it, or just to remove it at all? Certainly it would be my choice what to do. Any other opinions please? Old Donkey (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mask (???)

Happy New Year to everybody! Sorry but i really can't remember Meg Ryan in any role in The Mask (1994)... Was she ever there???... I don't think so (?...) Wasn't there Amy Yasbeck (sp?) in that movie? If yes, should we remove The Mask from her (MR's) filmography?... Old Donkey (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: since apparently nobody can confirm that MR was in The Mask - and i didn't find such confirmation myself - i removed it from the listing of her movies... Also, the newly added phrase about the Russel Crowe affair is removed as a duplication - since it is mentioned in next sentence in the text.Old Donkey (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

America's Sweetheart

From the article: "That same year, she appeared opposite Kevin Kline in Lawrence Kasdan's French Kiss, a romantic comedy that catered to her America's Sweetheart persona.". The link of America's Sweetheart actually points to a Courtney Love album. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

City of Angels

The text mentions the earnings of five romantic comedies she starred in. In this list is City of Angels which I do not see as a comedy at all. Loyola (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I think the dollar count should be dropped from the lead, or at least the sentence has to be rephrased -- "her lead role" did not gross that money the films themselves did. RomaC (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I doubt her date of birth is 1961 i remember a few years ago reading article when Meg stated she was turning 50 that year or the following. This was a couple of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the date is correct, Nov 19 1961 Old Donkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

Grammar problem with last section

"In 2010, Ryan sent an appologized letter for not coming to Jersualem Film Festival over the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla. "

Is "appologized" even a word? If it is, is that the correct usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Born in Fairfield or Bethel?

I found this source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000212/bio that claims she was born in Fairfield, CT. Is it Fairfield or Bethel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disastrous Plastic Surgery

Why is there nothing about her bad career-destroying facelift? Also I think both this article and the Quaid article showed considerable bias in her favor. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Film Festival controversy

Accordingly to this report: http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/agent_questions_20100720/ , the information about Meg Ryan refusing to attend the Jerusalem Film Festival because of political reasons may be incorrect. It seems to me maybe it would be better to wait until full clarification (maybe some next interview of Ryan - in which she would clarify this story completely; it seems certain that this question will be asked), before including this story into the Article. Any other opinions? Old Donkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Neogeolegend, you restored again the episode about the Jerusalem Film Festival that was previously removed and wrote as explanation that "It's obvious clear that she cancelled due to an attack over Freedom Flotilla". Sorry, but with all respect it is not "obvious" at all. Meg Ryan herself never made any public claim confirming that she refused to attend for any political reason. This was just a speculative version very quickly proclaimed in the media and then extensively quoted (and you referred to two such links) - without any proofs presented. Meanwhile there was another article - that certainly denied that claim and the "political version" (please see the link cited above). And I can't see any reason why the second link must be considered as less credible then the first one? At these conditions, the whole issue remains controversial and not fully clear. So why to insist to place it into the article right now? Why not to wait until a complete clarification from Ryan herself? It seems inevitable that it will follow, most probably such a question will be asked in one of the future interviews of Ryan. And then we will be able to put this story into the article being really sure about its credibility and accuracy of description. How about that? Best regards, Old Donkey (talk)

The article posted above does not come from a reliable source, but rather an opinion article. The fact remains that Ryan cancelled her visit immediately after the attack, which all reliable sources reported. Please stop editing the page over your own biases. 72.22.180.187 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Immediately after" doesn't mean "because of", it's a classic logical fallacy. According to the published article the author specially called to Ryan's publicist to ask, and his answer was negative. The name of the publicist is mentioned, and there was never any public claim from Ryan or her publicists and agents to support the version that she refused to go there "because of" the flotilla incident. So that report was at least no less reliable then the previous claims - that extensively quoted and reproduced each other still without any hard facts but only speculations, and most of which came from certainly politically biased (pro-Palestinian) websites. Yes the Wikipedia article must not be a place to spread political bias and agitation, with that I certainly agree. Best regards, Old Donkey (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

She did not cancel her appearance there. The fact is she was never scheduled to go there in the first place. Her publicist officially denied this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetpinky2 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Parkinson interview

No mention of this? Her behaviour was ridiculous, and revealed her to be a rather uncultured philistine. Fact that this negative incident is not mentioned in the article leads me to question the objectivity of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEdi4uf7Eo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blpq-Iwu25s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson_(TV_series)#Notable_moments http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-381987/Parky-nut-says-Meg-Ryan.html There's a bunch of stuff all over the web about this, but not, er, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.179.172 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are very different opinions about who must be blamed more about that interview - including the ones opposite to the one you proposed. Just for example, i personally tend to blame Parkinson much more then Ryan; it was his behavior that was prejudiced, arrogant, impolite, unprofessional and generally ridiculous. IMHO of course.

Actually this topic was already disputed here and not once (see the archive). It seems like after all a kind of consensus was developed between the co-editors of this article that this "Parkinson incident" was more "notorious" (in it's time...) then important. It was just another artificial scandal over nothing - exaggerated and exploited by tabloid media. By all reasonable standards there were and are many much more noticeable things then that ill-fated single interview to be mentioned in the serious encyclopedic article about the world famous actress with nearly 30-year career and almost 40 movies made. Old Donkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Total ommission of it is unbalanced and wrong. It does not deserve its own section but it is fair that readers have the chance to see it. Airbrushing is imposition of a POV. They both found it difficult, strained and awkward. Not for us to guess why. Blame is unhelpful; the incident happened. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For sure "the incident happened" but the question is not about that . The question is: whether this "incident" was really enough principal, characterizing and significant to be specially mentioned in encyclopedic article about the actress with 30-year career - or it wasn't. I think it definitely wasn't, for all the reasons mentioned above and in the previous disputes (please see the Archieve section). Respectfully - Old Donkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not very important by itself and I would prefer that it be removed. If it was part of a discussion of Ryan's interraction with media, it could be an example but it's not presented that way. Looking at the interview, I don't see that Parkinson asked any inappropriate questions, especially considering that Ryan was promoting a film that was pushing the envelope a little in terms of its sexual themes. She should have expected it to draw comment and that an interview would require her to answer some questions. Ryan seemed irritated throughout. Is she usually difficult in interviews? Parkinson later described her as a diva. Is she? He said she was rude to the other two guests sitting next her. Was she? She described him as rude and arrogant. Is he? There are two sides to the story, and we're reflecting only one and deciding Ryan was more at fault based on Parkinson's assessment of her. That seems inappropriate to me. Ryan objected to Parkinson's manner but this is not mentioned. I would like to see it removed as lacking context and relevance but if it must be included, at least we should rewrite it so that it doesn't put blame on one party. It should either be totally neutral or it should very briefly convey both sides of the disagreement. Old Donkey, you say above you blame Parkinson more, and I blame Ryan more. My attitude is that an actress with her degree of experience should be able to handle herself in an interview and if she can't answer a few challenging questions, perhaps she should stop offering herself to interviewers. I see no disrespect from Parkinson, only an attempt to raise the interview into something resembling an intelligent conversation, but even if the interviewer is out of line, she should be able to handle it. Clearly different people react differently to the interview so we must be careful not to fall into that trap as it is not our role. Like you, I question whether it's significant enough to become part of an encyclopedia entry such as this. I think it's not. Rossrs (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, thanks for your points... so you obviously see it in somewhat different way then i do. Actually i can't see there any moment that would display Ryan being really "rude" or something like that. "Uncooperative" - maybe yes, in some degree, but nothing more... and generally, all the "incident" looks to me like a "storm in a glass of water". Well, i think it just confirms again that it was a sort of incident that is seen differently by different people - maybe depending on views, tastes, opinion and estimation of situation, etc. Anyway, i certainly agree that it was not significant enough to be included in encyclopedic article like this one. Such "incidents" happens dozens per week and means nothing significant actually; it was just a particular perverted "luck" of this one - that it attracted some special media attention and some tabloid media exaggerated it's significance to unreasonable and undeserved degree (well, after all isn't this just what a tabloid media exists for and does all the time? :) ) Anyway, during 20+ years of her "celebrity status" Ryan gave dozens of interviews to many different journalists, and apparently that Parkinson appearance was only that one that caused such media reaction and "controversy", so it certainly can't be reasonably considered as "representative" and deserving such special attention. Kind regards, Old Donkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The attention on this page for this ONE interview was/is way too much. It was ONE interview. Let it go. The only one who keeps dredging this interview up time after time is Parkinson himself. Funny thing is about 80% of people who actually watch this interview - as opposed to just writing over what others said - all side with Meg Ryan, not with him. There are plenty of good tv and magazine articles with Meg Ryan out there. Parkinson was just a bad host that evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetpinky2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

The former image in the sidebox (Meg Ryan 2009 portrait) was replaced by the image (Meg Ryan 2 Met Opera 2010 Shankbone). Personally I believe the former was more convenient in the sidebox. How about returning to the original sidebox (while keeping the 2010 image elsewhere) ? I 'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly. I definitely think the Met Opera one looks much better. I think the 2009 shot is poor lighting/coloring and she looks a bit too 'just had plastic surgery' than the 2010 Met Opera shot, but I won't revert a switch. --David Shankbone 03:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)