Talk:Tall poppy syndrome

broader than Australian trait?
I feel that while the content of this page is reasonable, it misses completely the entire raison d'etre of the phrase. TPS is invariably invoked as a defence, an excuse or a dismissal by those with wealth or power; or their defenders. To talk about it-- as this page does-- as some social characteristic of Australians is to completely misconstrue its social function.

That is exactly why TPS is so often used: its users invoke some supposed national characteristic to explain away criticism of themselves. The authors of this page (very naively, in my opinion) construe TPS as just such a characteristic, in which the poor envy the rich. A much more meaningful description, I contend, is that TPS is a rhetorical device used by the powerful members of society to answer criticism of their behaviour. --Dr Garry 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ten years on and the article still fails to reflect this. Someone gets bagged for being a dick or routinely attributed with unwarranted talents/successes, and out comes the TPS-laden handwaves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.150.22 (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would take issue with that statement. In a society where TPS genuinely exists, then naturally and obviously it would only be invoked by people who wish to defend themself against criticism - because those who criticise would obviously not classify their criticism as _motivated_ by TPS. Why should the 'criticiser' state, "I am making a criticism because he makes me feel lower than him, in accordance with the TPS"? As a result, whether TPS is invoked only by people defending against criticism is a completely irrelevant fact for determining whether it exists or not. Furthermore, other negative characteristics of societies (take e.g. racism, or greed) are invariably described as genuinely existing on Wikipedia, and their articles do not solely consist of "this is a nonexistant defense (or attack) that people illegitimately use". To the extent that TPS has been described by a number of relevant sources, it should be described as a real phenomenon. 217.171.129.74 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To add to that - the claim that TPS is solely a rhetorical device used by narcissists to deflect genuine criticism is extremely difficult to reconcile in any meaningful sense with John Howard's quote in the article. 217.171.129.74 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Err...I know of no Australasian reputation for being resentful of success. I live in New Zealand, so I may be out of the international loop. Is Norway whispering behind our backs when we're not paying attention or something? I mean, I have frequently heard celebreties remarking on television about how nice Australians are, and in New Zealand, you're not jealous of celebrities, since everybody is friends with a celebrity. I know Tall Poppy Syndrome exists, but it's not usually applied to sports-people. Usually it's just a general dislike of rich people - for example, recently, when a TV news presenter's new contract paid her $800,000 a year, for 15 minutes a day, 5 days a week on the screen, and mayber an hour or two off-screen, a lot of people were angry. That's an example of Tall poppy Syndrome, the Michael Campbell one is not. Hell, the Campbell example is the opposite of Tall Poppy Syndrome. --Superiority 02:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * TPS as I've known it has never been upwards envy. In my experience, it's directed at arrogance, usually that of prominent people. A person needn't be rich to be the target of TPS. Indeed, rich people can be admired in that American way, so long as they're not arrogant.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * IME, 'tall poppy syndrome' always *used* to mean hostility directed at the successful because of their success. Unfortunately, the term has been devalued lately because the successful plead TPS as the reason for *any* hostility directed towards them, rather than acknowledge that their own behaviour might have provoked it.


 * Unfortunately TPS is now in the Australian gene pool and has been for many generations. It compliments perfectly many Australian's socialist behaviors and politics. This of course can be a good thing or a bad thing which ever side of the fence you are on. Steelslide —Preceding unsigned comment added by STEELSLIDE (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think genuine TPS did exist, and still does - just ask the kid who always knows the answer in class whether that makes him popular. But I think 90% of what's *called* TPS these days is nothing of the sort - egalitarian hostility towards arrogant behaviour being a good example. --Calair 04:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware this phrase is in common use in the UK, so I would question it as being uniquely Australasian. andrewcrosby 24 April 2006 (BST)

While the phrase is in commom use in many countries, it is a very Australasian trait. [[User:Temp0909091|Temp0909091] 11:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the following sentence be looked at:"Many Australasians have achieved success and wealth without attracting such hostility (e.g. Dick Smith, Ian Thorpe, Stephen Tindall); they can only do so by remaining falsely humble about their achievements and avoiding 'lording' their success over others. Thus, Australians and New Zealanders feel the need to appear self-deprecating, especially when in the public eye."The 'thus' seems to imply a logical conclusion that does not follow. The claim itself could also use some qualification since it seems to convey a prejudice that would be better described than asserted.Camerontaylor 16:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard this expression used in the UK - while I'm aware of the concept, I've lived in the UK for 36 years and have not once heard this phrase. Djaychela (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The mention to the supposed "feudal origins" of Australian society is gratuitous and likely made by someone who is not familiar with the concept of feudalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.139.151.4 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In Canada too
Hey, just wanted to let you know that this phrase gets bandied about in Canada as well, and not necessarily among folks of NZ or Australian descent. Maybe it's a commonwealth thing? In any case, thanks for the enjoyable page :)

Eh?.. are you sure? In 43 years, the first and only time I've observed this in Canadad is in today's New York Times (2009/2/2)-- and it is used in the very context that is described by another writer here (ie not truly to describe a trait of a population but to defend an individual). That is, The NYTims quotes a US-person speaking of an emminent Canadian friend using TPS to derisively describe criticims leveled at his friend by Canadians. As the other writer on this page pointed out, in this context, it is invoked as a defense of his friend. It is very amusing that the Canadian in question is a politician... his friend from the USA seems to have forgotten that politicians are subject to public criticism. Frankly, I've heard little but praise about this guy except for an enormous error he made for which he himself has apolgized profusely. The point being, that in this context, the usage is invoked primarily to defend a specific individual in a specific context -- it is NOT invoked (primarily) to describe a trait generally attributed to Canadians. It's just BS. The real Syndrome is the one that causes persons who defend persons of eminence in this manner rather than trying to keep an open mind. I guess the word already exists: "Snob" ... Come to, "TPS" should be removed from this encyclopedia. It's ridiculous. I believe it belongs only in a compendium of nonsense. Is that what Wiki-pedia has become? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.3.229 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in Canada my entire life, and have never hear the expression "tall poppy syndrome." I encountered the phrase for the first time today, when used by an Australian in the context of a discussion about pretentiousness, and was pleasantly surprised by this article. Yes, I do believe this is what wikipedia should be used for. Information about everything. However, unless someone can specify which part of Canada this expression is used in (perhaps in the maritime provinces?), I vote that "Canada" should be removed from the list of countries where this term is used. If a specific location is known, then allow that specific location to be added. Canada is the largest country in the world by landmass, and when dealing with something as diverse as expressions, it's best not to group the entire country into something that maybe a small minority of people use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.60.64 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Antipode-centric?
I think it is becoming clear as the article evolves that the syndrome is widespread, certainly in the UK and a number of the former British colonies -- although the particular phrase describing it may be most common in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Is it still appropriate to tag this as being an Australia-related topic? Even if it is, it seems most of the work has been done here by Australians, who deserve much credit. But, perhaps, the time has come to broaden the focus. Roregan (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the origins of the term with a Greek story, I see no particular bias that a clean up of the article can't sort. Currently the article reads too much like an essay and less like an encyclopaedia entry.  I don't see however a justification for the tag requiring globalisation.  Hence I will remove it. --Matilda talk 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is never used in the UK, I'm going to remove that reference Billsmith453 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'm from the UK and I've heard the saying many times. See also an article from the London Evening Standard from September 2008 - a month before the confident assertion, given above...


 * And from The Guardian, November 2001... Catiline63 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is used in the UK, but is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an Australian phrase and concept. --Ef80 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not perceived in the UK as an Australasian concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.139.151.4 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is literally the first time I've heard this phrase being associated with Australia and frankly had no idea they used it at all down under. The idea that it is percieved as an Australianism in the UK is utter nonsense.  Frankly, I think all reference to Australia in the article should be removed, as I see no reason whatsoever to believe this is a primarily antipodean concept. 2A00:23A8:4C05:DB01:880C:64F7:E9D4:204F (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant Bible Quote
I don't see how the extensive Bible quote in this article has any relevance at all to this topic, and whoever inserted it didn't leave any notes. The article is primarily about a modern antipodean cultural influence, not the Bible. The Aristotle reference is directly relevant as the source of the term, but the Bible is not. I propose that section of the article should be removed. Bregence (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant to me. The syndrome seems to be a human -- rather than singularly Australian -- cultural or psychological trait.  The bible quote well illustrates that point.  And the quote is hardly "extensive." It makes its point and the article moves on. Roregan (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the quote, while potentially relevant is not directly relevant and contributes to the essay like form of the article. I think it better removed and the article content tightened to be more factual.--Matilda talk 23:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on the accuracy of the quote
In the Etymology section, the quote references corn in ancient Europe. I am pretty sure that this was impossible as corn is from the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.219.34 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Check out Corn; in North America we refer to maize as corn, outside it's "a general word for cereal crops and their grain". Hga (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Genuine Merit
"Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term used in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada to describe a societal phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are criticised or resented because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers."

I thought the whole point was that it is not genuine merit that warrants the phrase. e.g. this is why dick smith or bradman are revered, since they worked hard to get there and are seen to deserve it. Whereas say James Packer was simply born into wealth, and many executives are overpaid for terrible jobs. It is deeper than simply 'success envy' which is how this entire article is framed. e.g. Too much success is simply greed (and/or criminal), inherited wealth and power deserves no respect its their own, and so on. These are healthy and positive traits for any democracy.

It should also probably be noted that it is becoming less popular anyway, increasingly Australians look up to anyone with wealth, power, or simply celebrity, regardless of how meritorious their position is. Kerry Packer was lauded as a hero when he died, when he never paid income tax and invested heavily in exploiting vulnerable people through casinos. What a guy. 118.210.126.48 (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; the term sounds slanted, giving the subject more credit than perhaps they are due. Leave out "genuine merit" and replace it with something less qualitative, like "stature" or the like.

76.20.21.234 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good call. The use of "genuine merit" is WP:OR in the first instance (i.e., there are no RS:reliable sources cited for the description. While Kerry Packer is not a good analogy (he was rich in the first instance, just as was Gina Riley), therefore the fall into a different category of admiration, and usually by the aspiring to upper middle classes. There's a definitive difference between those who are already wealthy and powerful and those who "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps", underdog/working class situations.


 * As such, I'm going to modify the "genuine merit". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Opening
"term used in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada" surely "an English language phrase" would be enough.212.183.140.7 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the original is more informative.  Tall Poppy Syndrome is not a common phrase or concept in the US.  I (a Yank) only know about it because of spent time in Australia and was under the impression that TPS was solely an Aussie concept.  Listing the other countries was information that would have been lost with "an English language phrase." Xanthrax (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle vs. Herodotus
Having read Herodotus (a long time ago, so my mind may be fuddled up), I seem to recall that Periander was informed of how to be a tyrant with the chopping of corn, not the other way around. I am probably (as usual) wrong, so does anyone know? -- 15lsoucy salve.opus.nomen 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Corrected that, plus added the relevant passage from The Histories. Snowchess (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sue
What's the connection with Mary Sue - there doesn't seem to be any mention of TPS in the article for Mary Sue.Autarch (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mary Sue article has been linked to TPS as well. I don't believe there is a valid connection either way, as they are both substantially different concepts. The only similarity seems to be that they are both very different forms of social phenomenon, involving elevated, talented people or characters. Mary Sue's are not generally considered or characterised as to be suffering from TPS, rather they are usually largely or gloriously successful in their exploits, (despite the various hazards they may face); and purely by nature, one subject to TPS could well be a considered a real-life Mary Sue by their peers, but it's still not mentioned in this article, because it is not particularly relevant.203.211.69.7 (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This page might be worthless
There is only one source that actually has any relevant information for this subject. After eying the "Schadenfreude" link at the bottom of the page (synonymous with "for the lulz" of encyclopedia dramatica fame) I suspect that this is a troll article. Perhaps it should be deleted until this page can actually be verified as genuine. ArminHammer (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, it's unmentioned how TPS is often used as a device to hand wave criticism of the undeserving away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.65.193 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While that is a valid point, I feel the article should persist. Wikipedia should encompass everything of factual merit, and whilst this page is messy and largely unverified, it is of merit, and about a real social phenomenon, and is very much a work in progress. Most of the articles' current content is on the right track, just lacking in citations and thorough, concise subject matter. When I ditch the iPhone as my primary interweb interface, I'll have a go at tidying some of this up, (but due to residing in Christchurch, NZ, the recent earthquake has pushed acquisition of a new PC back at least a few weeks).203.211.69.7 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

After patrolling many new pages, my view is that this page is far from worthless. It is now improved to a satisfactory state for a WP article and this Talk page has been fascinating to read. The phrase is clearly well known in parts of the British Commonwealth. Possibly editors from other parts of the world see this as trivia, however, in Australia at least, this phrase is very well known and very much part of the contemporary political discourse. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage in Australia
This section needs a rewrite and citations. Such a culturally significant concept surely has some academic papers to it's name. The concept has a lot of sides in Australia. While it is indeed used to criticise people deemed to be too big for their boots, it is also related to people being discriminating against, to keep them in their place. Different people think of it differently, some see it as a positive some as a negative, and that should be reflected in the article. On top of all that, politicians most definitely have abused these insecurities for political ends (citations needed obviously).

I think we should ditch the kylie, steve irwin, etc references. This is pure opinion and can't be reasonably citable.

Also why is this sentence in the Usage in Australia section? "Prior to becoming British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher explained her philosophy to an American audience as "let your poppies grow tall" 93.96.128.116 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This paper is pretty interesting http://www.eurolang.mq.edu.au/staff/documents/bertpeeters/Tallpoppy_Egalitarianism.pdf 93.96.128.116 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the paper (above) from the University of Tasmania. I have inserted a link to it under 'External links'. It will be a useful source for anyone who has time to develop this article. On the question of "kylie, steve irwin, etc" I would not delete them at present. There could be an interesting expansion of the article around the question of who is perceived as a 'tall poppy'. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a note, this PDF is no longer available as a download (wish I'd have downloaded it in time!). There are, however, a few useful papers available from the relevant Macquarie Uni Department of European Languages which appears to now be defunct or absorbed into another department. Relevant papers are to be found @ through a search for "Tall Poppy". I've downloaded a couple, but don't know when I'll find the time to develop this article, which is slightly misguided as to the pejorative form it takes in Australia and New Zealand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot to check the archives for the Bert Peeters article noted above: it's available here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not used in Canada
I've lived in Canada my entire life, and as a couple others mentioned above, before stumbling upon this page, I had never come across the expression "tall poppy syndrome." Apologies in advance to anyone offended by the following comment, but a lot of British people seem to be under the impression that Canadian culture is still influenced by British culture (because it's part of the Commonwealth), which is not actually the case, and so expressions that are used in Britain, Australia and/or NZ are assumed to be used in Canada as well... Wannabe rockstar (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I am from Britain but came across the term for the first time in Toronto - used by an actor to describe the difficulty of being successful when success in Canada leads to jealousy and difficulty obtaining further opportunities (she alleged). Canadians may suffer, but in my experience British society is riddled with the problem. Any sign of success is greeted with some sort of sneering remark. 206.244.28.58 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Usage in the US
MadPoster, with regards to the statement, "By 1835, the metaphor had crossed the Atlantic to the United States..." citing then-Congressman Francis Thomas: does this not merely indicate an instance of the use by an erudite man? The statement, as it currently stands, implies that 'Tall Poppy' has recognisably continued to be used and understood in the US. An instance (or even a couple of instances) of the usage does not equal it having entered the vernacular. Please provide further verifiable, reliable sources for its use. At the moment, it reads as WP:OR. It may be an interesting piece of trivia in and of itself, but is WP:UNDUE without demonstrating a continued usage and understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the source of your continued objections to these contributions. Both quotations are taken from published sources, and the citations are given in the same format as others on the page. The 'Usage in Australia' section of the page, for example, includes three quotes, similarly intended to date the advent and document the origins of the phrase. The fact that the phrase entered the English language outside of Australia, and was used elsewhere in the Anglosphere before any documented usage in the antipodes, strikes me as highly relevant to this article, which prior to these edits presented both the phrase and the concept solely from the Australian perspective. I did not claim "a continued usage and understanding" (although other early British and American uses abound) because that would, in fact, have violated WP:OR. What I wrote was that the first documented use of the phrase occurred in Britain, and that it was then used in the United States. You have asked for a source verifying that this is the first documented use. I'm not sure what you're looking for. It's the first documented use by virtue of the fact that it occurred a century prior to any other cited use. If someone else locates an earlier use, they can update the article with a quote and citation to reflect that. That's not a "citation needed" - it's simply how etymology works. I was flabbergasted when you simply reverted my initial edits, despite their clear contributions to the topic, thereby simply striking from the article evidence of the actual origin of the phrase and its centuries of usage. If you have further objections, I would encourage you to discuss them, and to make appropriate edits, rather than to proceed in that fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadPoster (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. You are interpreting primary resources which is WP:OR. It does not work on 'etymological principles', but on secondary sources. Telling me that the document you have found is the earliest one you've found, therefore is the oldest known reference is merely a demonstration that it's the oldest you, personally, have found. If you have found a scholarly work where a verifiable and reliable expert has stated that it is the oldest known reference in the English language is a secondary source... which is what Wikipedia relies on. This is an encyclopaedic resource, not a 'let's make it up as we go along' resource.


 * In the second instance, please run a standard google check. How many references are there to the use of the tall poppy syndrome, and which part of the English-speaking world do they represent (even in continued and current usage)? You may have been 'flabbergasted', but I was 'gobsmacked' by what you imagine to be constructive editing as opposed to what actually is constructive editing as relates to Wikipedia's protocols. Bring secondary sources to the table and we may have something of substance (as opposed to supposition) to discuss. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Usage in New Zealand
As a New Zealander I also agree with the below. But my edits seems to be getting removed. "The tall poppy syndrome is disastrous here in New Zealand. TPS can be sited as one example as to why New Zealand has developed so poorly when compared to Australia, Canada and the United States. A recent study on the subject here in New Zealand suggests, “the effects of TPS may have significant implications for entrepreneurship in New Zealand. Firstly, TPS may discourage entrepreneurs from starting a business. Secondly, people who have experienced a business failure may be reluctant to establish another business because of the public reaction to their 'fall'. Finally, entrepreneurs may deliberately limit business growth because they don't want to attract attention.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffaza (talk • contribs) 09:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As a New Zealander, I disagree with the second paragraph about it being used in a positive light. Calling someone a tall poppy is a positive thing (i.e. encouraging a successful person to ignore their critics - if this is what is meant then the meaning writing does not make it clear), but having tall poppy syndrome is not associated with humility/being the underdog in New Zealand in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clenchedteeth (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the form of pejorative it takes as 'Tall Poppy syndrome' is skewed for both Australia and New Zealand. Yes, one can become a 'Tall Poppy' as having risen from the lower echelons of society and made something of yourself, but 'Tall Poppy syndrome' is a 'syndrome' for a reason: those who have grown too big for their boots and let it go to their head (hows that for mixing metaphors!). It's related to a power structure struggle where there is no longer a connection to the grass roots (groan, sorry) from whence the tall poppies emerged, therefore the desire by those who constitute the grass roots to cut these people down as they are no longer theirs representatives but their exploiters, even by means on alluding to their humble beginnings are if they were still genuinely attached to them.


 * Any more bad puns and metaphors and I'll make myself sick.


 * If you're interested in developing this article, you might want to take a look at some of the papers available mentioned in this section of the talk page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My first experience with the term some 40 years ago in New Zealand was as a derogatory reference to people trying to drag down people who have achieved more than themselves in some endeavor. A child at school who performed much better than their peer group was a Tall Poppy who /must/ be cut down. It seems that at the time it was common - where I grew up at least - to refer to TPS as a hatred of or attempt to "cut down to size" high achievers, regardless of whether their success was earned or not. I've just found several articles regarding this usage, from a variety of sources. For instance: here, here and here. This is a very different meaning than the one presented in the article. 120.29.2.50 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience of tall poppy syndrome has always been used in a egalitarian sense, be humble. It's about not being a braggart, not thinking your better than anyone else. At the end of the day what we think doesn't matter, its what reliable sources say. Bacondrum (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the linked references? All of them I could reach define the phrase as jealousy at another's success. None of them carry the primary connotation of "mocking people who think highly of themselves" as this article claims. Nor do they support "it is seen by many as self-deprecating and by others as promoting modesty." The entire top section appears to be spin to make it seem like this is something that it is not. TPS appears to have always been the practice of pulling down those who are more successful. Livy's tale about Sextus Tarquinius seems to support this interpretation and has no apparent relationship to humility or modesty. Ditto L'Estrange's newspaper article. I should think that is sufficient reason to correct this article, no? 220.240.13.91 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Positive implications?
As a (Canadian) student of Australian history and culture, my impression -- albeit as an outsider -- of this mostly Australian concept is that it isn't entirely negative. While some Australians criticise the tall poppy reflex in their country, others believe the reason why Australia has never had a Hitler or McCarthy is because Australians instinctively suspect messianic types of lying. As Australians have explained to me, if you start raising yourself above the mob, as in "I know better that you lot, you should do as I say", you get "cut off". This is far from the jealously and envy that this article posits as the sole origin of poppyism. I suggest that someone better qualified than I (ideally an Australian) add a section to the article on this positive aspect.

On a side note: I'm agreed with some commenters here that TPS isn't a "thing" in Canada, and probably not in the UK either. Its occurrence in rare sources there is an artefact of someone's direct or indirect experience with Australians or their founding cultures. (Historical Ireland? Lumpen England?) Further, the suggestion that there's any presence of this attitude whatsoever in the US is frankly ridiculous. American culture famously worships the "successful" and zealously embraces strong-men and demagogues. Laodah 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has suffered a lot of WP:OR since the last time I looked at it. TPS does (or did) have a very distinct flavour in Australia... and, yes, there's always been a positive undercurrent: an 'us' against 'the ruling class'/'aspiring ruling class' perception. The elite would deploy the term as a weapon against the masses when someone from the working class championed by the elite was (mainly righteously) assumed to have become their sheepdog (an accusation of the masses suffering from sour grapes syndrome, if you will). In fact, this article has been turned around by good faith contributors who've decided that it isn't a very particular phenomenon in Australian society, but encompasses the entire Anglosphere. It's difficult to find good references, plus get away from the high profile current affairs articles I tend to get stuck in.


 * This is your opinion. And there's no positive aspect in this kind of hateful, pathetic, mediocre mindset. Strong leaders don't come down with this mindset, and they're brought to power by the same mentality that you showed unintentionally here: Socialism, populism, anti-elite rhetoric. All they can relate in Communism is this syndrome. It's the inverse of what you said, but you think it's the proper place to spread radical genocidal-like leftist propaganda. Tolerating sucess instead ot showing envy and negative response like you did here is one thing, embracing demagogues is another topic, and you seem to like them, specially if they agree with the far-left agenda you're promoting here. If you suffer from he syndrome described don't try to defend it here, not the proper forum. Sawyersx (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar saying in Turkish -- Should I add it to the article?
The saying roughly means "The tree bearing fruit gets stoned", and is used to describe roughly the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerFishy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No. It may be tempting to add original research to articles, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource. If there are reliable sources stating that the two expressions are related (i.e., solid linguistic sources) it could be considered on this talk page. Even there, it would have to be assessed as to whether it is WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. It is not the function of editors to do anything outside of following reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarify, please
The term has been widely used in many cultures of the egalitarian English-speaking world.

What does this mean? Is it classifying the whole English-speaking world as egalitarian? Valetude (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out one of the aspects of the plethora of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH recently introduced to the article. It's a vacuous platitude supported by nothing outside of personal opinion. I've initiated a quick fix, but the entire article needs to be vetted after a few years of overenthusiastic contributions by well meaning editors who don't know the subject area and think they're improving it using their own guesstimates instead of reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have only See Also-ed it to Negative selection (politics), to avoid this PPOV, but FYI there is a similar phenomenon in Japan: Deru kugi ha utareru is a Japanese proverb; the English translation is “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Zezen (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity Roasts
Regardless how widely the term is used in North America, I think the actual practice of cutting down the tall poppies is fairly common in the U.S.A. in the form of celebrity roasts. Although this does not apply to all people of power. Is this practice worth a mention? --119.75.3.194 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Irish culture
The sources describe a present-tense and ongoing culture in the Republic of Ireland, so there is no basis for placing the description in past tense. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should look for more recent sources? Sarah777 (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Irish sources are from 2011 and 2017. Are you suggesting that Irish culture has moved on in four years? The WP:ONUS is on you to prove the need for past tense. Please provide sources newer than four years that describe the abrupt change in culture. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Sarah777 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why not talk in the past tense when we dislike the present reality?
 * So, you are saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying YOU don't like reality! Sarah777 (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying YOU don't like reality! Sarah777 (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Pejorative point of view of the 'syndrome'
The article has been written from the point of view that the 'syndrome' is a bad thing. Articles in Wikipedia should be descriptive without judgement. The opening line makes this obvious: "it is a cultural phenomenon of jealous people holding back or directly attacking those who are perceived to be better than the norm" Remove "jealous" - which implies bad faith on the part of those with the sentiment. It is unnecessary to understanding the phenomena, and no evidence is provided. "Directly attacking" - implies physical action. At best the phenomenon is public expression of dislike for a person who is the "tall poppy". There's no evidence of people being attacked for being "better than the norm". "Perceived better than the norm" - this is not my understanding. Tall poppies are people who do think, or are perceived to think, they are successful or better than most others The opening description misses a vital second part of the syndrome: ... and act, or are perceived to act, as if they deserve to be treated better than other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.229.149 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Partially agree, partially don't. Agreed it needs some work around wording like "jealous", but your understanding of what it means appears to be off. None of the sources or usages that I've been able to find say anything about it being directed toward those who perceive themselves to be "higher" rather than people who actually are "higher". SamStrongTalks (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm Australian and I've *always* understood the term to refer to people who think they're better than everyone else due to wealth, success, etc. Tall poppies are most often called wankers in everyday speech. 124.149.228.141 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this term had its origins in New Zealand and Australia in the 20th century, but it has expanded since then. It seems psychologists and influencers are creating new definitions for this term. "Tall poppy" has existed since Roman times or earlier, but the adding of "syndrome" is a 20th century feature. I believe the article should begin with the original syndrome term used in mainstream language given there are many information sources online that support the AU/NZ origin, but should also recognise the reinvention of the term that is currently happening. This would be fair to recognise both sides, in chronological order. Cityofsand (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

“Uppity”
I wonder if this term could be considered related to Tall Poppy Syndrome. The difference is that this label was not applied to peers, but to members of another social group, viewed as inferior, who were perceived as attempting to “rise above their rightful station”. Usually, in the USA, this meant Black people. This use of “uppity” could be seen as an attempt to cut down the tallest poppies in _another_ field, rather than one’s own. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:58A8 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there are some similarities, but more so with the Law of Jante from Denmark. To me, Uppity is where other people believe that you think you are better than everyone else because you have had some type of success. The "Law" of Jante basically says that you should not fool yourself into believing you are better than everyone (According to the harsh townsfolk in that novel). Tall Poppies are high achievers, but the original main definition of Tall Poppy Syndrome is a high achiever who brags relentlessly about their own success. Those high achievers who additionally have TPS, take every opportunity to tell journalists their opinions about life/society in general, and often accuse everyone else of being unsuccessful because they are lazy, delinquent or undeserving. For this reason, I think TPS is more a name for people who brag, while Uppity is more a name for people who succeed. It's possible that you could add Uppity as a related term at the end of the article, and also to the Law of Jante article as well. Maybe you could even create your own page for Uppity if you have some books or journal papers to cite in it. Cityofsand (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * to be honest i'm australian and working class and my understanding of tall poppy syndrome has always been fairly intertwined with the idea that tall poppies think they're better than everyone else. 220.240.51.71 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "attempting to “rise above their rightful station”" That definition would also match anyone who is striving towards upward social mobility. And social climber tends to be used as an insult. Dimadick (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Chinese idiom
木秀于林 风必摧之 Describes the equivalent of this too. 120.21.147.108 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)