Talk:Meg Ryan

As The World Turns

She was in more than 2 episodes on ATWT. She was my favorite character on the show for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.140.47 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit requested on October 7, 2016

Meg Ryan's mother was not a former professional actress. She was a former assistant casting director and an English teacher. Please delete the words former actress when describing Susan Jordan nee Duggan. Please insert former assistant casting director in their placeHoshi-o (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Reverted your edits because you have not provided any reliable sources to verify this claim, while the actress and English teacher claims are sourced to People magazine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Quaid infidelity

We have one gossip column in 2008 where Ryan claims infidelity. We have a reputable news source in 2017 where Ryan denies the claim. We can include both claims, or neither. Given that there seemed to be gossip about it in 2008, I suggest keeping both since the gossip itself seemed to be notable. Also, by keeping both sources we hopefully don't have to deal with this again. Work permit (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What is not permitted is the removal of reliably sourced content to replace it with other content, reliably sourced or otherwise, that favors or disfavors the subject of the article. Doing so does not reflect WP:NPOV and is WP:UNDUE. If there exist contradictory comments on this topic that are all reliably sourced, and all are determined to be relevant to the subject, all should be included. This can include reliably sourced denials by the speaker of comments reliably sourced and attributed to them in the past. General Ization ^Talk 18:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article is reasonably balanced now? Work permit (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The text about Ryan's claim of infidelity keeps getting rewritten. I have now deleted that entire part from the article. Hopefully that will stop the rewriting, re-rewriting, re-re-rewriting etc. Fethry fan (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the 2008 source IS an actual interview, done after the 2000 one. The 2017 source was in fact not from 2017 at all but from 2000. This is just all wrong.Amazing to see Wikipedia accept gossip sources as real information btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkystories (talk • contribs) 08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

List of awards

I think the "Stinkers Bad movie awards" should be removed. It's not a real award from a real organization.Purplethree (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Name

I see on the talk page archive there was debate about the middle name "Anne"; one user in 2009 mentions removing it several times because it's apparently her confirmation name, not her birth name. However, the only source cited in-article is "Superiorpics.com" (now dead anyway), which... hardly sounds like a very good quality source, particularly in light of the numerous- countless, if one includes those of lesser quality- published sources giving "Anne" as part of the name, including Empire Magazine's Movie Miscellany (2012), Encyclopaedia Britannia Almanacs, Time Magazine Almanacs (one would think the appearance of the name in these year after year would be corrected?), The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film 6th Edition (2014), Random House Dictionary of World Biography (2005), etc etc. If however there is something of comparable or superior quality supporting "Anne" not being officially part of her name, it can justify its omission. It's entirely likely that Anne IS her confirmation name; why should it be unlikely? The point is, a reliable source would be needed for it not to be included when virtually every source listing a longer name than "Meg Ryan" give the full version including "Anne". At any rate, all I can find online specifically regarding the confirmation name scenario are profiles on, for example, Ethnic Celebs and Musicminder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.215.181 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

Her other child is Daisy True Ryan. Daisy was born in China in 2004 and was adopted at 14 months of age by Meg. Ryan raised Daisy as a single mother in New York City after her high-profile 2001 divorce from movie star Dennis Quaid Elinewes (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Kathryn Sedgwick" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kathryn Sedgwick has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17 § Kathryn Sedgwick until a consensus is reached. Graham87 18:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Superbowl ad

• Talk:When_Harry_Met_Sally...#Superbowl_ad
• Talk:Billy_Crystal#Superbowl_ad

There's nothing demonstrating this is significant for Ryan, Crystal, or Sweeney. --Hipal (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The significance is that Ryan and Crystal are both returning to their most iconic roles for the first time in 37 years.

It is notable enough that it received substantial press coverage, and is routinely mentioned as part of their career in articles about them:

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/billy-crystal-meg-ryan-when-harry-met-sally-super-bowl-commercial-hellmanns-1236289603/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/super-bowl-ad-hellmans-1.7446941

https://www.foodandwine.com/hellmanns-super-bowl-commercial-meg-ryan-billy-crystal-2025-8782117

https://news.designrush.com/hellmanns-brings-nostalgia-to-the-big-game-with-when-harry-met-sally-katzs-deli-tribute

https://www.vulture.com/article/super-bowl-2025-ads.html

https://people.com/super-bowl-2025-meg-ryan-billy-crystal-recreate-when-harry-met-sally-hellmanns-commercial-8781563

https://time.com/7211183/best-super-bowl-ads-2025/

https://parade.com/news/legendary-actor-billy-crystal-77-unrecognizable-36-years-after-when-harry-met-sally-photos

You may not think it is notable, but the media disagree with you. I would agree that it is not especially significant for Sweeney, but given the notoriety and iconic quality of the scene, it is worth mentioning even in her bio.

It cannot be considered PROMO if we avoid mentioning the sponsor entirely.

I would ask you to stop leaving inaccurate comments on my Talk page; it has stepped over the line into WP:HARASSMENT. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK and WP:FOC.

See WP:NOTNEWS. Super bowl ads get a lot of attention. That's the point of them. They are extremely promotional by nature.

If there's something significant to Ryan or Crystal, please quote from the source. --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking me to find a secondary source that literally says "this is a significant moment in Crystal's career"? If that is the threshold to be met, you would have to delete three-quarters of the article. No one would claim that, for example, voicing Mike Wazowski reaches that level of significance. Nor is there any point to naming the hospital he was born in, to take another example.

The attention given to the ad exceeds the attention given to other aspects of their careers mentioned in their articles.

All advertising is promotional, and aim to get attention. I see nothing worth mentioning about the fact that an ad is a superbowl ad;there are a lot of them, and more each year. A reunion of Harry and Sally after 37 years is significant, because Harry and Sally are significant characters. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking for evidence from sources that we are not violating policies and guidelines. NOTNEWS, as I pointed out, which is tied to WP:POV. WP:BLP also applies. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

BLP clearly does not apply; there is nothing sensitive or controversial about the ad. POV does not apply; you have acknowledged the ad is relevant to the When Harry Met Sally article, and are only objecting to including it in the articles about the stars of the movie. I take it that you recognize a film sequence reuniting two iconic characters for the first and only time in 37 years is significant. Why do you say this is NOTNEWS?

Reciting the alphabet is not sufficient; you need to connect the policies to the facts and circumstances, not just recite policies. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

there is nothing sensitive No one is saying it is sensitive. A reading of the BLP nutshell should make it clear why BLP applies.

Just because something may be WP:DUE in one article, doesn't make it DUE in others. I've asked for quotes, none have been offered. Time to drop it then. --Hipal (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether BLP applies to an article about a living person. The issue is whether you can point to anything in BLP that would weigh against inclusion.

The fact that the ad gained significant attention across a wide variety of media, some devoted to advertising, some devoted to entertainment, some to general news, combined with the fact that, for example, an article about Billy Crystal that devotes 2 or 3 lines to summarizing his career and treats this a career highlight, weigh in favor of inclusion.

It is wrong to set an inappropriately high bar and then strike something because it does not meet that bar. Bob Gollum (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's BLP that sets a very high bar. --Hipal (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, no, BLP sets a reasonable bar, not an unduly high one. What aspect of the edit offends BLP? You have never addressed this, despite being asked multiple times. Recording a notable milestone does not seem a BLP violation. Bob Gollum (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring or misrepresenting my comments.

There's no evidence that I can find that mention is DUE rather than NOTNEWS, nor has anyone offered such evidence despite the requirements of BLP. --Hipal (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation; that is an accurate description of your comments. If you are challenging the work of two other editors, on a point in which you need consensus and are in the minority view, the onus is on you to show it is undue. Why won't you explain your view?

You have been shown that both the media and two other editors consider it a significant moment in the actors' lives. Bob Gollum (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)