Talk:Potential superpower

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)

• That source you provided is not about India having potential to become a superpower but contrary to it. It is more about potential of relations between India and the US. ~2026-45094-34 (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I Support rollback of listing of India with fomer Potential Superpower.

No strong academic consensus has been provided to justify reclassifying India as a former potential superpower nor an academic source is there to explicitly state it yet @Segaton: has went ahead with edit without reviewing. The sources currently cited for the downward shift in perception are weak for this purpose:

Modern Diplomacy (OpEd by Pakistani Sara Nazir) – an opinion piece in a source that is not reliable either.

Scroll.in – primarily an opinion/analysis piece. Scroll.in along with TheWire are not allowed for contentious topics on wikipedia if I remember correctly.

Neither source represents the academic or mainstream scholarly consensus required for such a categorical change on a high-visibility geopolitical topic. Meanwhile , the article itself already contains multiple sources that continue to treat India as a potential or emerging superpower/great power (including long-term projections from Goldman Sachs, statements by Tony Blair in 2024, and others). Coverage of India in this context has remained frequent in recent years rather than declined. Plenty examples:

The 2025 Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics entry “Rising India”, which analyses India’s hard- and soft-power attributes and its potential as a rising power.

T.V. Paul’s 2024 book The Unfinished Quest: India’s Search for Major Power Status from Nehru to Modi (Oxford University Press), reviewed and discussed in scholarly outlets such as Strategic Analysis (2025) and Foreign Policy.

Ashley J. Tellis’s 2025 Carnegie Endowment paper “Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future”, which explicitly frames India as evolving into a great power (while noting limits on full superpower status).

A 2026 academic debate hosted by Leiden University specifically on the motion “Will India become a Superpower by 2047?”.

Peer-reviewed and scholarly discussions such as the 2025 Springer chapter “India and the Major Powers: Changing Dynamics and Future Projections” and earlier assessments in the Journal of Asian and African Studies.

We have more than enough coverage in acamedia to keep India in current list and barely any to remove it all. The edit so far by is WP:NPOV and WP:DUE as it is barely explictly stated in the sources provided by @Segaton:. ANVESHIT (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

"long-term projections from Goldman Sachs" Is Goldman Sachs a reliable source for economic topics? It is an investment bank, not an academic institution or a newspaper. I tend to be skeptical of American sources when it comes to economic topics. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikiepdia documents what's prominent in academia and not our personal opinions. Goldman Sachs is anyway relevant for economic context and we have more than enough sources in both economic and gepolitical context to display the academic concensus ANVESHIT (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Scroll is absolutely not unreliable. You should quote the sources you have provided so far so that we can see if they truly assume India as a potential superpower or not. ~2026-45094-34 (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, also I have some more sources as well:-

https://power.lowyinstitute.org/

https://press.spglobal.com/2023-08-03-S-P-Global-India-in-a-Defining-Moment-for-its-Ambitions-to-Become-a-Global-Superpower Youtile carol (talk) 19:48, 27 August 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)

Russia is an existential threat to the EU's stability, but not an existential one in the sense that Russia would have any chance to defeat its combined member states in a direct total war.

Also, the individual member states of the EU+UK have a larger nominal GDP and higher military expenditure than China and Russia combined, with a fraction of their population. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would expect stability to be a very important factor in a very fractured union and pretty existential to it's existence, look what happened with UK. Nominal GDP values are not all that decides the factor here, the fact that you've to include UK in the conversation is itself a proof(which if you removes, declines significantly), it's a very fractured union with each of their member states having their own interests. Military expenditure is also a moot point because of this fracture, the only member state that can outmatch the other countries when it comes to the quality of equipment is France. Fortunately the changes seems to be reverted and Russia, India and even Brazil(which again I opposed back then because Brazil had as much claim to the title as India does) was reinstated as potential superpowers and there's no point in engaging with this debate further. ~2026-49438-67 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Revert

@ZDRX: You have restored a version that contains grammatical and factual errors and is self-contradictory without any explanation. I have justified all the adjustments and corrections I've made, while you did not justify your revert. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

You are treating China as being treated as superpower by many when it is still a "potential" superpower. You are treating Japan as being out of superpower race when it has been predicted to become a superpower in the 21st century. You shouldn't be edit warring. ~2026-49683-03 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You are treating China as being treated as superpower by many when it is still a "potential" superpower.

Wrong. I corrected the map legend to correctly state that China is a contending superpower, as its superpower status is debated by academics, which is in accordance with what was already stated in both the lead and body. The previous version was self-contradictory as the map legend described it as merely a potential superpower, which falsely implies that the academic consensus is that China is not a superpower, but has the potential to become one in the future. That is not the current academic consensus, but only one position of the debate, and stands in direct contradiction to the lead and body.

You are treating Japan as being out of superpower race when it has been predicted to become a superpower in the 21st century.

That statement is neither supported by the body nor the refs. cited. And even if it was, that wouldn't change the fact that Japan is no longer considered a potential superpower in the 21st century. An obsolete consensus does not become valid again simply because its predictions targeted a future point in time.

You shouldn't be edit warring

It can't be edit-warring when no reasons have been provided by the user who reverted me. Per WP:BRD, the reverting user "should be specific about their reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page". Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody says China is a superpower. They just view China to be the biggest candidate among the potential superpowers and thats why it has been specifically mentioned as such while the rest are mentioned as "other candidates". Japan is not out in the race of becoming superpower but still leads in technology. There are some favorable articles like these which justifies its inclusion. Shankargb (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody says China is a superpower.

Have we read the same article?

• "Since the mid-2020s, China has increasingly been referred to as a superpower in its own right (including by U.S. President Donald Trump)."
• "China's status as a superpower has been the subject of great academic and geopolitical debate. In recent years, the view that China has become an established superpower has strengthened."
• "However, opponents suggest that China's domestic challenges still persist: an ageing and shrinking population, lack of skilled immigration, and international concerns about its soft power status, human rights issues, lack of hard power capabilities through a global military alliance system, and the dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade."

So, the body and lead say it is debated, which has to be reflected by the map legend. Referring to the country as merely a potential superpower when its actual status as a superpower is debated now is not only inconsistent but self-contradictory.

[...] which justifies its inclusion

If a reasonable number of reliable sources can be found, then yes, maybe. But as of now, both the body and refs. cited there contradict the statement that Japan would still be seen as a potential superpower, so it can't be in the lead. Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It can't be edit-warring when no reasons have been provided by the user who reverted me.

That is entirely false. WP:WAR explains the edit warring policy. Nothing in that policy says that a failure to explain a reversion to your satisfaction is an exemption from edit warring. Neither is a strong belief that your content is better. WP:WAR says "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable."

WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy and not even a guideline. It is a good essay and generally accepted as a reasonable guide to behavior, but claiming that other editors have failed to adhere to the minutiae of that essay is not going to go far if you are in violation of an actual policy. You need to reach consensus here on the talk page before continuing to restore your preferred article content. CodeTalker (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to reach consensus here on the talk page before continuing to restore your preferred article content.

It's not about a version whose content I like "better", but about a version containing grammatical and factual errors, including self-contradictions, having been corrected.

I stick to it: Correcting objective grammatical errors and fixing self-contradicting statements in the lead not reflecting what the body and the refs. cited say does not require consensus just because one editor apparently did not spot the errors and instead confused the fixing edits with an unsourced content change, when the exact opposite is the case. Reverting over a version that contains objective grammatical errors and self-contradictions vs one that has them fixed is, by my interpretation, not edit-warring, but fixing something which, if it would have happened in bad faith (which is not the case here), would be seen as vandalism. Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Added a citation needed tag to main image's caption

I have added a citation needed tag to the main image's caption, specifically after the term "Contending superpower"; it struck me as an odd term and when I went to look in the body text for sources using this term and the definition given by the article I was unable to find anything. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I used the term because China's status as a superpower is not yet fully established as a settled academic consensus, but disputed and a matter of scholarly debate. It is merely a descriptive Wikivoice summary of what is already stated in the body of the article, not some kind of classification used by political scientists. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The usage of a label in bold gave me the impression it was meant to be an established term of some kind. I mean, if they are not established terms, do we need to have the bolded labels there at all? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it's about time we consider demoting US as an undisputed super power

There is a lot of edit wars in this article right now, I think it mostly comes down to the fact that US is simply not the 'undisputed' superpower anymore rather than China being one. ~2026-49438-67 (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

reliable sources please. Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The U.S. is an undisputed superpower in the sense that its superpower status is not disputed, not undisputed in the sense that it doesn't face competition. This should be obvious, because if that'd be the case, the article would be self-contradictory. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Although obvious from context as I explained, I now changed the description from "Undisputed superpower" to "Established superpower" to further prevent ambiguity. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)