Talk:Potential superpower

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work. Please add a page number to footnote 54. Thanks and have a great day!

Mariamnei (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This page is Outdate

In the current 2020s, China should categorised as a "largely recognised potential superpower" while I know the US currently still the world's sole superpower in full spectrum. Russia or the former USSR and the UK should be categorised as a former superpower. Several weeks ago someone edited about this and I agree but somehow the page got reverted. ~2026-11181-69 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to propose. China is listed at the top (and even named de facto superpower) so that seems covered. UK has never been a superpower (it was a great power but is power had declined after WWII to an extent it was never considered a superpower). So there appears to be some inconsistency in what you are stating making it impossible to do anything with. Arnoutf (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Categorization

I’ve said this before, if we’re gonna be categorizing China as more than a potential superpower, we could be categorizing it as a regional superpower or something along those lines, and U.S. as “Firmly established superpower.” ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. "Regional superpower" can be a potential WP:OR. I consider moving China back to the list of potential superpowers Fmtc13 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Former candidates

@PaulRKil, The Account 2, and George Ho: Russia was removed but it would have been better if it was placed under a "former candidates" section with a source saying it is no longer a candidate for superpower.

I also think that India should be moved to such a new section. Take a look at these sources: Do we have any sources that still consider it as a "potential superpower"? Taking a look at this 2011 article it seems there were lots of hopes but all of them stand shattered today. Segaton (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: See this discussion. Do you see anywhere? See the version from June here. MarcusTraianus unilaterally removed the longstanding "former candidates" section and is now edit warring to remove even more sourced content.

The version IP user is restoring was already explained here by the editor above, while MarcusTraianus is only restoring his problem unilateral edits. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 17:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I see your point; I've attempted to roll back to a "pre-dispute" version, this edit from June 19. I'm not an expert on superpower status, but I would agree with efforts to reduce amount of content discussing "former candidates." OhNoitsJamie ^talk 19:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Former candidates should be retained with those 3 countries in them. MarcusTraianus has been already warned for edit warring, and should be blocked should he resume edit warring again. Shankargb (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The pre-dispute version is 18 June right after which MarcusTraianus started to remove content.

Russia was listed as potential superpower until June 10. Not a single source has been provided so far to show how India is still a candidate for superpower. "Former candidates" section helps in preserving the arguments about them. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi segaton,

I have reviewed the sources you provided. My understanding is that they mainly discuss the challenges and obstacles facing India's rise, such as economic, institutional, demographic, and strategic limitations. However, they do not necessarily state that India is no longer considered a potential superpower.

A country can face significant obstacles and still be considered a potential future superpower. In fact, much of the current discussion about India appears to focus on whether it can overcome these challenges rather than whether the possibility has disappeared entirely.

My concern is that the term "Former candidates" may imply that India has moved out of the category of countries still being discussed as possible future superpowers. If current sources present a mixed picture with some arguing India has major obstacles and others continuing to discuss its future global role perhaps the wording or section title could better reflect that ongoing debate.

Reliable sources continue to analyze India's possible future role as a major/global power

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/10/multipolar-dreams-bipolar-realities-indias-great-power-future

https://www.eurasiareview.com/08022026-indias-rise-as-a-global-superpower-why-it-matters-for-malaysia-analysis/

https://seyboldreport.org/article_overview?id=MDUyMDI1MDcwMTUyMzY5NTU2

https://newsonair.gov.in/india-to-become-a-superpower-by-2047-chief-economics-commentator-martin-wolf/

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-902905 ~2026-40502-00 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: I will need to review all this, but we are discussing if China is already a Superpower (again) on that talk page and I'd believe that outcome will effect this page as well depending on how we conclude that discussion. PaulRKil (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about India's classification under "Former candidates"

I would like to request a review of India's placement under the "Former candidates" section.

The term "former candidate" may imply that India is no longer widely considered a potential superpower. However, the article itself discusses ongoing debate about India's future superpower potential and includes recent views and predictions supporting that possibility.

Reliable sources continue to analyze India's possible future role as a major/global power, while also discussing the challenges that may prevent it from becoming a superpower. For example, recent analysis from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace examines India's future great-power trajectory and the debate over whether India can achieve superpower status:

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/10/multipolar-dreams-bipolar-realities-indias-great-power-future

Could editors review whether placing India under "Former candidates" accurately reflects the current literature, or whether the wording/section structure should be clarified to better represent the ongoing debate?

Thank you. Dashreels (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

EU should be moved to further candidates section as well

I don't understand how you can move Russia and India to former candidate section while EU gets to stay, especially when EU itself consider Russia an existential threat to itself and large part of animosity between EU and America now is due to its fear America leaving its conflicts with Russia will cause it to handle Russia alone which they might not be able to. Even the 'regulatory superpower' it supposedly have are waning as it becomes lesser and lesser percentage of global economy due to declining birth rates(and not helped by increased popularity of anti immigration policies, even former pro immigration parties embracing it across all of Europe). https://shapingeurope.eu/the-brussels-effect-is-fading-away/ ~2026-41509-84 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)