Talk:The Thorn Birds

	Australia portal The Thorn Birds is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Novels: Australia Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"second highest rating mini-series" and "number 1 bestseller"---in which country? --84.176.13.231 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard article[edit]

Can something be done about the cursory plot outlining and actually get into some of the details/themes of the story? Ridiculous and hilarious as the Thorn Birds may be, it deserves more than simple "and then, and then" statements.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- —Moondyne 01:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn Bird Theme[edit]

Regarding the Thorn Bird theme, I know it had previously appeared in an Oscar Wilde story named "The Nightingale and the Rose" (Inside a story collection named "The Happy Prince and Other Tales"). I wonder if this was actually the source of TTB's reference, or if they both draw from the same source. Does anybody know? WhoMI (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. - be happy to be mailed an answer, if anybody ever comes accross one. Please use eyalnet shift-2 yahoo not-comma com[reply]

Thornbird myth[edit]

After the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornbird and a comment on my talkpage, I've added a section about the "myth" to this article, with a few incoming links including a hatnote at Phacellodomus (to which thornbird and thorn bird redirect). Further expansion or improvement welcome! Pinging those involved in the AfD: @TenPoundHammer, Glendoremus, E.M.Gregory, MB, and Premeditated Chaos: Wikipedia ought to be able to answer the question "What's this 'Thornbird myth' I've heard about?". I've also included a separate "Thornbird myth" about the European goldfinch. PamD 10:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about the section as it is, honestly. All we have is a description of the "myth", a lengthy quote about the "myth" (redundant to the description), an uncited assertion that the "myth" is a gospel allusion, and the statement that it has been described as an old Celtic myth (cited to non-RS, which isn't great even if it specifically says that's the point).

If we're going to include it, it should be primarily in reference to what it adds to the novel, for which we need better sourcing. If I had sources, I'd rewrite it along the lines of "McCullough opens the novel with a description of an artificial mythological creature, the thornbird, which is a suicidal masochist but sings very nicely. There is no evidence that McCullough was drawing from an existing myth; rather, the thornbird is a literary device that allows the author to draw a parallel between Whatever Characters and the thornbird to reinforce her theme that 'the best is only bought at the cost of great pain'." If we find a cite for the gospel thing we can stick that in. Obviously we want to be less flip but I think that an integrated approach is the best way to point out that it's not a real myth, while also focusing on the literary significance of the device.

Edited to add - I'm also dubious about the inclusion of the goldfinch thing. It's not super relevant to the book or the "myth" from the book. Also currently it's just sourced to a blog, which is not great WP:RS-wise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article format change needed[edit]

The Wikipedia format for articles on novels & films is missing what the people really want/need. We need a synopsis that summarizes the story, and we rarely get that. Instead we get a long plot detail that cannot substitute for the summary. Writers are perfectly able to compose a summary right out of the detailed plot. But it's not possible for the format to change that allows them to do so, to meet people's needs, eh? Rtdrury (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]