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)

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. Kripcat 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)

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)

Sources

This article is in dire need of sources. The article describes a phenomenon that no two people can agree on, so we need to insist on sources for all statements. We would be better to just include quotes of other notable people who have commented on TPS, rather than try to include our own opinion on what it is, who uses the term and why. Ashmoo 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, seems some agreement.. nominally it's a resentment of success, but in reality a device to minimise or deflect criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2006 (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 Roman 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... [1]

And from The Guardian, November 2001... [2] Catiline63 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (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.