Talk:Superpower

RFC on China superpower status

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Most supporters of both options relied significantly on personal opinion, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. In line with precedent I'll be assessing consensus through strong !votes based in our policy and guidelines—whether explicitly or otherwise—and somewhat discounting of others and those that did not address such arguments. Some supporters of option A cited policy and guidelines on reliable sources, making consensus for A stronger than that for B, but not enough to defeat similarly-reasoned concerns that sourcing was not strong enough to include either option. Thus, I find no consensus. (non-admin closure) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I know that a consensus was reached, but I have some suggestions. First, I think that China should be presented as an emerging or regional superpower. This would satisfy both the academic argument (A) and media/rhetoric argument (B). I found citations to back this up and added them, but they were taken down. I also take issue with potential non-objectivity regarding the United States, specifically politically charged declinist rhetoric. ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are the sources I cited:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3936751-china-a-great-power-but-not-a-superpower/

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/bookshelf-china-may-not-be-a-superpower/

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/10/opinion/china-trump-us-power.html ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Debated versions

So what two versions are being disputed over? (sources are the one currently or previously using the in article)

A - version outlining academic debate including some media coverage.

Extant superpower

  United States

Potential superpowers—supported in varying degrees by academics

  China

  European Union

  Russia

  India

China is often described as "the only country with enough power to jeopardize the current global order". Since the late 2010s an increasing amount of proponents have classified China as a superpower because of it's modern military, regional influence, cultural export, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, economic and manufacturing volume as signs of global dominance. However, opponent's to the superpower label suggest that domestic challenges still persist; such as an ageing and shrinking population, lack of skilled immigration, alongside international concerns of its soft power status due to 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.

VS

B some academic analysis, media coverage and political usage

The United States and China are the two countries most commonly seen to be superpowers.

The United States and China are widely considered to be the two contemporary superpowers. Beginning the late 2010s China was increasingly described as an emerging superpower, and as of the mid-2020s is frequently labeled an established superpower.

VS

C - version to be proposed by participants

to be announced

Sources

Polling

• Support A (as outlined below in discussions)Moxy🍁 20:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all Both A and B contain fundamental problems in reasoning and sourcing and neither should be deemed acceptable in anything even close to their current versions. (as C is empty that is not a relevant choice either). Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B as outlined in the above discussion. Option A would be appropriate if this was 2006, but this is 2026. Option B is supported by a half-dozen reliable sources while Option A has no basis in reliable sources. --Plumber (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B Completely agree. At this point, the sources disputing China's status as a superpower are overwhelmingly based in the 2000s and early 2010s.It's a relatively straightforward metric: are there any countries that come close to the power and influence of either the United States or China? The answer is plainly no. GDP, diplomatic presence, military spending, tech industries etc.

  To lump China in with India, the European Union, and Russia feels very 2000s. No one talks about these countries or entities as superpowers, either academically or in common parlance. Dunnowy123 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support B as outlined in my reply under the discussion section. Seconding Arnoutf's point that neither are up to standard. FropFrop (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• A but B is also OK. (invited by the bot) IMO "A" is better because it provides more information & attribution. "B" less preferable but also OK. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B also per the reasoning in the discussion section. With that said I agree that both proposals need substantial improvement, but B is at least a more relevant and accurate baseline to work from. Gryfia (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B as it has the most up-to-date sources. A has sources decades old by this point and does not represent the geopolitical reality on the ground. B is also more concise and less bloated with outdated fluff if you know what I mean. 42Grunt (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• A per WP:NPOV and WP:BESTSOURCES. Current affairs magazines, news media, and statements by government officials pale in reliability and weight to journal articles, we have an academic bias and privilege scholarship. Imo the last sentence of A should be based on such sources Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Support B - With clear subheading sections for the U.S. and China in the body of the article under Current Superpowers discussing the strengths and limitations of their superpower status. Lede should ideally be concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-15693-02 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support A per arguments by Kowal2701. Though I am not saying that this is the best solution, because to a large effect it depends on what superpower means, i.e., is a country with nuclear warheads or to be able project power (e.g., aircraft carriers) anywhere on the globe? On the former A for sure, for the latter only USA can do this.A.Cython(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm currently undecided, but I share the concerns of others over the quality of sourcing here. We should be making decisions based on high-quality reliable sources, not personal opinion. Find the sources first, analyze them, then hold an RfC. I also notice that Option A has grammatical issues: "amount" should be "number", as proponents are countable, and there should be no apostrophe in "its" or "opponents". Toadspike [Talk] 07:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B, but I agree with Toadspike that this may be out of order. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Support B The general view at this point seems to be that the current world superpowers are China and the US. The Account 2 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm in a similar boat to Toadspike here. I do think B is better than the other options presented but we should not be basing descriptions of "superpowers" on a bunch of newsmedia claims. That's very weak sourcing and, frankly, if that's the best we've got we should probably be mute on the topic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option A - It is still broadly agreed that China is not a superpower as of yet, but is trying to become one. Others even say China will not become one. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sources references a book by a controversial historian. It does seem that based on WP:BESTSOURCES, a number of academics are calling China a superpower. "The China challenge is a different one. No matter its exact economic trajectory in the years ahead, China is a superpower. Its economy already accounts for close to 20 percent of global GDP. It is second only to the United States in military spending. Although it does not have nearly as much clout as the United States on the global stage, its ability to influence countries around the world has increased, thanks in no small measure to the vast array of loans, grants, and assistance it has offered. But China is not a spoiler state like Russia. It has grown rich and powerful within the international system and because of it; it is far more uneasy about overturning that system." - Fareed Zakaria] (2023). China is now way too dominant in manufacturing, renewables, rare earths, science and technology, and research and already surpasses the U.S in a number of respects. It is the ONLY country that cannot be bullied by the U.S. as we have seen with the Trump Trade War. -Aristotle ~2026-19469-91 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option A - The United States remains the only superpower. It is heavily supported by the academic sources. China is still a "potential" one. Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• A - Though the details are not that satisfying, it is still better than B which is misleading. Shankargb (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support B as they are likely to create moonbases within a few years of each other Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support B especially after the recent ceasefire concessions in Iran. ~2026-21388-08 (talk)

• Support B Iran war has exposed that large air carrier fleet doesn't win wars, neither does a larger nuclear stockpile. China is equal or exceeding the US across many economic and military power metrics. It's incredibly biased to lean on military power project when US cannot even defeat a regional power like Iran. Yet China has to compared to absurd standards?Rwat128 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option C Something along the lines of "Sources are not consistent on which countries are considered superpowers. Some only include the United States in lists of contemporary superpowers, while others are more liberal in the interpretation and include countries like Russia, China, and India. Other sources include Supranational unions like the European Union in the list. Some countries are listed as superpowers in specific categories, such as military superpower, economic superpower, and various forms of soft power superpowers." This is an accurate representation of what sources are actually saying and balancing the different perspectives. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I support this. This is great. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

In my research I find that the media seems to go back and forth on this point with academics debating the fine points of classification ....that I believe we should present to our readers ...over basically a statement of fact based on mostly cherry picked media coverage.Moxy🍁 20:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I find most of the sources problematic. Media sources are problematic as they tend to give a comment very much linked to a specific occasion making most of it very much contextualised which makes it general long lasting relevance very dubious. The cited academic sources are mainly primary sources and hence not necessarily representing mainstream consensus. This may be a problem for the time being for any concept of superpower which (1) Is a social construct and hence no absolute truth can ever by claimed about what and who is a superpower or not (2) Lacks a universally adopted definition (e.g. country, another social construct, is defined under international agreement. Hence for any major changes we would (ideally) need very authorative secondary (or tertiary) sources. I expect such source will appear, however I think it may take years if not more than a decade before they are here.

When looking at statement A, the current war in Iran shows to me the statement "China is often described as "the only country with enough power to jeopardize the current global order" is simply untrue. The US seems capable of doing a similar thing (also two primary academic sources do not add up to "often"). The next line in version A is clearly non-neutral (the words proponent and opponent are used as if there is a formal petition under a qualified body where entities vote).

Statement B is also seriously problematic - the opening sentence does not provide a reference to the bold claim widely considered, a claim that bold that we would need secondary analyses and not, as is currently the case, a list of mainly media outlets (by the way one of the articles sourced here claims in the title that China is NOT a Superpower).

So in short in my opinio both A and B contain fundamental and fatal flaws and should not be supported.Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions or sources. In my view it explains exactly the two opposing opinions we have here right now. We have yourself who I'm assuming believes China is not a superpower versus Plumber who believes they are a superpower sourcing this to remarks by Marco Rubio, Antony Blinken and football journalist Simon Kuper. I personally believe academics like Andrzej Demczuk; Baumann, Max‐Otto; Haug, Sebastian; Weinlich, Silke who are analyzing this is what we should present to our readers. We should also make clear all the sources are within the past 3 years for both suggestions.Moxy🍁 04:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Regretfully I do not have any such sources, I doubt they exist and they might be emerging only in the future once we are back to a new equilibrium. In my personal opinion it seems the term superpower was mainly relevant in the era between 1945 and early 1990's when there were 2 powers that projected global economic, military and other powers (ie USSR and USA). With the collapse of the USSR the USA may have kept its global dominance but we now see other power blocks emerging (China, India, EU to some extent although almost all of its power is economic and soft power). I recently learned of John Mearsheimer's hypothesis that a world where 5 great (but not super) powers exist is most likely to create a more or less stable equilibrium and it seems we might be moving there. There is no room for 5 superpowers (how can all of them project global power). So in my view the entire notion of superpower is getting increasingly irrelevant (and several of the sources hint at that too).

Long answer, but in short I think we might consider changing the discussion from "what state will be the next superpower" to "at what year did the era of superpowers end". I doubt I will get consensus for that, but it will take the sting out of discussion about adding China. Arnoutf (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this....your the first editor here that makes a valid argument/rebutal for both POVs and my middle ground. Hopefully others will see the RFC and make a suggestion that all can get behind. Best we try to educate our readers and editors on the academic debate over politicians and journalists mentioned in passing.Moxy🍁 18:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

How about ‘Undisputed Superpower’ for America, ‘Disputed Superpower’ for China, and ‘Potential Superpower for India, EU and (debatably) Russia? We can also make a new category of Britain and Russia as former superpowers ~2026-20091-64 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

also works. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I was requested to give a comment by a bot. After reading through the proposals, their sources and the discussion here, here is my feedback:

Proposal A	Proposal B
The sentence: "Since the late 2010s an increasing amount of proponents have classified China as a superpower because of it's modern military, regional influence, cultural export, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, economic and manufacturing volume as signs of global dominance" has some sources that don't fully support it. The Washington Institute article doesn't explicitly call China a superpower but instead discusses why China has grown in power, is now a competitor, etc. The TIME article is the same article as the Washington Institute article. The McGill article calls China a great power, not a superpower. The Globe and Mail article is the same article as the McGill article. Conclusion: The statement that "an increasing amount [sic; number] of proponents have classified China as a superpower" is not well enough supported.	The segment: "Beginning the late 2010s China was increasingly described as an emerging superpower," is supported by two news articles, both of which are behind paywalls. While this doesn't exclude them, someone else ought to verify them. Some higher quality sources ought to be used.
The sentence: "However, opponent's to the superpower label suggest that domestic challenges still persist..." is supported mostly by opinion piece articles. The Wall Street Journal article (while written by a historian) is an opinion piece and is not written in an academic tone. I imagine that he's made similar claims in peer reviewed articles, or nonfiction books of his, so I don't expect there to be a good reason to use this as a source. The The Hill article is also an opinion piece, but it is by an international relations expert. I imagine there are better quality sources but I don't think this one is necessarily problematic. The CNN article is also an opinion piece, but it is by an awarded history writer / journalist and a historian. I imagine there are better quality sources but I don't think this one is necessarily problematic.	The segment: "and as of the mid-2020s is frequently labeled an established superpower" similarly uses paywalled opinion articles as sources. There are also some comments by leading politicians.
Summary: This version relies a lot on China being "described" as, or "labelled" as, some variety of superpower. I think trying to detail what China is called (rather than detailing what China is) ought to be the aim. This version also lacks a decent number of quality sources, as well as sources which support all of its claims.	Summary: This version similarly relies a lot on China being "described" as, or "labelled" as, some variety of superpower.
Conclusion: Some of proposal A's claims being unsupported, and it making more detailed claims in combination with its low quality sources, makes it the less desirable of the two. If higher quality sources can be found and the focus of the section shifts from what China is called, to what China is, then I think option A would be closer to my preferred option. Of the currently provided options, option B is my preferred.

References

• Comment Worth noting for context to this RFC that in late January I made a bold major rewrite of this article to have it recognize the US and China as current superpowers (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superpower&diff=1335526831&oldid=1334629891), but that was reversed two weeks later thanks to some editors disagreeing with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superpower&diff=1337612573&oldid=1337610501). It's worth comparing the two different versions of the article in their entirety rather than just the ledes; in particular the current version of the article equating China with Russia, the EU and India seems questionable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Conclusion

This RFC has now been going for over a month, following another 2 months of back-and-forth over making any substantive changes to this page. At every stage a majority of those who have weighed in have supported changes that update the page and do not present a position that the US is currently the world's sole superpower as being the consensus among academics and commentators, on the basis that it is not. This is also reflected in the "polling" conducted above.

At this point, I think it is reasonable to proceed with the updated page (that is "version B" or something akin to it) as the baseline, and for those who object to it to put forward their views and seek consensus for changes to it, rather than to continually revert back to the page as it stands against the preference of most contributors.--Gryfia (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is correct we have one side with their meatpuppets making a votes vs lesser amount of experience editors citing protocols. It's and odd one. As evident above some aren't here to educate our readers but to make a stand. Just have to revisit in the future when more experience editors are involved. Moxy🍁 00:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I still remain concerned about source quality for both options - as I said in the discussion, while I see option B as the less-bad option, neither is really doing it for me from a source perspective. I'd hoped someone would present better sources throughout this RfC for one or the other option. That seems not to have happened. I will say that a search for peer reviewed sources using the search string +China +Superpower on the Wikipedia Library returns about 22k responses so there's quite a lot on the subject to go through. I have not had the time to do this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a few sources to get people started though: and Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Its all about the sources What B is proposing is .....

remove academic analysis source like Demczuk, Andrzej (2025-11-18). "Illusion of Multipolarity: Why the U.S. Remains the Global Superpower". Historia i Polityka (54 (61)). Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika/Nicolaus Copernicus University: 35–53. doi:10.12775/hip.2025.029. ISSN 2391-7652.

and replce it with a source that just uses the word in passing by politician China, U.S. Mission (2025-01-21). "Opening Remarks by Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee". U.S. Embassy & Consulates in China. Moxy🍁 16:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I would not consider Marco Rubio to be a reliable source for WP:SKYBLUE personally. However, considering the extensiveness of sourcing here I do think we should be excluding journalistic sources and doing a more thorough review of academic literature before coming down one way or the other on this. In other words I think the RfC was conducted prematurely and should probably be closed as "no consensus" with no prejudice to reopening when people have properly assessed academic WP:BESTSOURCES. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy watching the CBC publish puff pieces about the mysterious new spirit that is the Talk of Toronto: Baijiu. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Later followup on above

Wikipedia should reflect recent updated new sources, not old antiquate outdated sources from decade ago. China is clearly a modern day superpower in all aspects. Rwat128 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

China is not a superpower yet.

To be a superpower a country has to be able to fight anywhere in the world at any moment, and the US is the only country with the ability to do that since it's the only one controlling the Oceans with its massive 8.2 million ton strong navy (larger than 8 navies combined).

USSR was a superpower because its geography allowed it to move troops quickly across Eurasia basically being able to rapidly deploy forces anywhere in the world (USSR occupied two important places - A large portion of the North European Plain allowing it to project power into western Europe and the Eurasian steppes allowing it to project power across much of Europe and Asia (thanks to the advent of railroads under Stalin's industrialization during WW2) Sam Wood Rp (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

When the number one superpower acknowledges that there is another one in the world, it's a done deal: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/politics/trump-china-taiwan.html ~2026-34395-50 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No. It's a negotiations trick, makes it easier for the other side to say yes. Read Never Split the Difference. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RFC... or a pre-RFC? Attempts to revert

@PaulRKil: Must we still consider China a superpower as defined? The RFC conclusion by Aaron Liu didn't appease you apparently, i.e. neither version A nor version B should be used. Why still wanting to describe China in the lead as a "superpower"? George Ho (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We’ve had numerous noticeboard incidents with this page where the outcome of this RfC was respected. If you want to challenge the original conclusion then go to AN. If the original closer is viewed by you as not being a viable person to close the RfC, then neither you or Aaron Liu are suitable alternatives due to the back and forth editing you’ve both engaged with. PaulRKil (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We’ve had numerous noticeboard incidents with this page where the outcome of this RfC was respected.

Which noticeboard incidents? I couldn't find such in archives of AN and ANI.

If you want to challenge the original conclusion then go to AN.

Please provide diffs and evidence of the so-called original conclusion. A comment by Gryfia isn't a "conclusion" but rather implicitly begging for a closure, IMO.

If the original closer is viewed by you as not being a viable person to close the RfC, then neither you or Aaron Liu are suitable alternatives due to the back and forth editing you’ve both engaged with.

You've not yet visited Aaron Liu's talk page, have you? The original "closer" is Gryfia, right? If so, then I totally disagree. Gryfia was just making a suggestion, so how does this make that user a qualified closer?

Also, Aaron reverted your attempted reversal of his closure (diff). How does this make him disqualified from being a closer? George Ho (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Here’s an instance.

2. Gryfia literally titles their entry as “conclusion.”

3. My attempts to revert back to the status quo for this article have been routinely reverted. Perhaps I’m crossing who reverted what, but I do find it suspicious that you appeared doing article reverts for this page and Potential Superpower saying that we need to have an RfC, when I make the point an RfC was already done for this you claim that RfC wasn’t properly closed, and Aaron then closes this in a manner that is favorable to editing the article contrary to the consensus that was built prior and in a manner favorable to your beliefs on this subject. PaulRKil (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Sam Wood Rp is blocked from editing this article for edit warring, not for views and all that. Furthermore, the RFC wasn't technically closed.
2. Pinging User:Aaron Liu since I've yet to see you visit User talk:Aaron Liu about his closure.
3. That's not what I meant. Looking through my edit summaries, I didn't say that we need to have an RfC. I was referring to the then-ongoing/unclosed RFC discussion that Aaron closed.

   Since you probably refuse to acknowledge Aaron's closure as proper, I'm thinking about either awaiting Aaron Liu's response before raising the matter at WP:AN for closure review, taking you to ANI, or going to WP:DRN.

George Ho (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

contrary to the consensus that was built prior

Which past threads of this talk page then? Talk:Superpower/Archive 13 doesn't have technically closed discussions about China primarily. Maybe you meant to invoke WP:EDITCONSENSUS or WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, right? ...Or which part of the WP:consensus policy? George Ho (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I have responded through my edit summary. Gryfia did not perform a close and could not have performed a close because ze was involved; Gryfia !voted, participated, and one who makes a case in court cannot declare themself the winner. That is for an uninvolved, impartial judge.

George Ho requested that the unclosed discussion be closed through Wikipedia:Closure requests: Special:GoToComment/c-George_Ho-20260709193600-Talk:Superpower#RFC_on_China_superpower_status. I see now that many participants went ahead with one option despite its lack of consensus and having the least consensus there. It was a major mistake to not realize nor address this but the RfC simply didn't have a consensus. New consensus can be formed through new discussions on the talk page, or simply an edit not being reverted. (Edit: Though, consensus from an RfC is higher than consensus through edits not being reverted as RfCs invite the opinions of a much wider community, per ConLevel.) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho and Aaron Liu: I apologize for the late reply. My weekend was busy and I am typically on mobile but I respectfully disagree with this close and support escalating the RfC for a fresh review.

First and foremost, I do not agree that “no consensus” is the proper outcome. I acknowledge that consensus is not determined by headcounts, I do not believe the closing rationale adequately explains why arguments supporting Option B or A for that matter were insufficient to establish consensus. The discussion contained substantial support for Option B, and the closer’s explanation does not set it aside.

I also disagree with the assessment that the sourcing for Option B was weaker than A. While both relied more on news, A relied on scholarly articles from decades ago. Recent scholarly literature treats China as a present superpower. For example, David A. Lake, writing in the Chinese Journal of International Politics, repeatedly refers to the United States and China as “the superpowers” and describes China as “a global superpower.”

I also disagree with the assertion that Sam Wood Rp’s blocks are unrelated to consensus. The blocks were not based solely on the number of reverts. They arose from them repeatedly restoring disputed content instead of resolving the dispute through discussion. Under WP:EDITWAR, editors are expected to stop reverting and seek consensus and this editor repeatedly references restoring material contrary to the consensus reached on this page. The edit warring and consensus issues were related rather than independent of eachother. If an admin had disagreed with the idea that consensus was met, it is unlikely they’d go for a topic ban for that editor.

For those reasons, I disagree with the conclusion that there was no consensus. The discussion as a whole appeared to develop toward Option B as the preferable baseline over A. While improvements to sourcing may still be warranted, I do not believe the discussion supports a finding that no consensus emerged at all.

If we cannot come to a resolution, I support escalating this RfC for review. Given the significance of the issue and the disagreement, I want to ensure that the determination accurately reflects both the discussion outcome and policy. PaulRKil (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's my proposed RFC:

Shall China be considered fully a superpower as defined in this article?

1. Option A: China is and should be a superpower
2. Option B: China is a potential superpower candidate... but not yet a superpower
   1. B1: Omit mentioning China anywhere outside the "Potential superpower" section
   2. B2: Explain in this article why China is not yet a superpower, especially in the introduction
3. Option C: Omit China from this article completely (unlikely this option will pass; adding this option for the sake of adding it)
4. Option D: Bad RFC!! (I don't want this option to happen, especially if this RFC is actually bad)

George Ho (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"Bad RfC" does not need to be listed as an option, and I usually don't see it listed as an option. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The "bad RFC" option was sarcasm... (probably bad sarcastic attempt, wasn't it?) —George Ho (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Option TBD: There is not a universally agreed upon definition of a superpower, or a universal list of what entities qualify as one. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, some sources limit the extant superpowers to the United States. Other sources include China, or Supranational unions like the European Union or NATO. In recent years, some countries have been described as superpowers in specific areas, such as military, economic, energy, or soft power. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Other sources include China, or Supranational unions like the European Union or NATO. In recent years, some countries have been described as superpowers in specific areas, such as military, economic, energy, or soft power.

Must they be described as fully such merely because other sources said so? Why else should these sovereign states or international organization be fully superpowers, i.e. more than just "potential superpowers"? George Ho (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources say so, then why wouldn't we describe them as such. I'm worried this page is devolving into a nationalistic contest to define superpower based on what individual editors world views and personal opinion, rather then reflecting the complexity in the literature. I have my own opinions on this, mostly that power creep has leaked into the term, and that people throwing it around don't know about the other types of world powers, like great power that would probably better describe most things called superpower in the literature. That said, the "potential superpower" is not a common way to describe these, most just confidently declare something to be a superpower in a hot take. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm worried this page is devolving into a nationalistic contest to define superpower based on what individual editors world views and personal opinion, rather then reflecting the complexity in the literature.

I really wish your concerns were debunked, but I'm afraid it's less likely, considering recent edits here lately.

That said, the "potential superpower" is not a common way to describe these, most just confidently declare something to be a superpower in a hot take.

Shall the next RFC be about either solely (if not primarily) China or the term "superpower" itself? If the latter, then... I guess I'm unaware of how the term has been variously defined. Indeed, I'd like the RFC scope to be much, much narrow if it will be solely about the term itself. If neither, then what shall the next RFC be about? George Ho (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are we voting like the 4th time??? Consensus has already been arrived at. Option A is what many reliable sources say. I suggest we revert to the consensus edit which was stable for the past few months. ~2026-39643-24 (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If you like to challenge the closure, then please go to the WP:AN. Need I say any further? George Ho (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about WP:DRN then? George Ho (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Just strolling by, but I thought the consensus said "no consensus" and "both options are equally weak" or something, which clearly isn't "Option A" being consensus (the closer wrote "making consensus for A stronger than that for B, but not enough to defeat similarly-reasoned concerns that sourcing was not strong enough to include either option. Thus, I find no consensus.") which suggests that the sourcing is not strong enough for both options. Since the RFC is clearly not working, I suggest DRN before RFC too. Just strolling by, I might be mistaken or missed some things.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am pretty sure we are not "voting", because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, the article reads too much like Option A, despite it being heavily disputed. I might participate in the future RFC or DRN (doing proper research) but for now, this is my notes for this dispute. Thank you.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I like GeogSage's suggestion.

People seem to think that there is some universally accepted truth about what constitutes a superpower.

Do multiple sources call China a superpower? Yes yet multiple sources also suggest that Russia and Saudi Arabia are energy superpowers, I saw EU described as a "regulatory superpower", and Japan has often been described as an "economic superpower" back in the 1980s.

Wiki should state that there is no consensus regarding what exactly constitutes a superpower and avoid mentioning anything about contemporary superpower/s. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct, I like GeogSage's suggestion too (and not frantically reverting to either option) 16dvnk (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Implementing GeogSage's suggestion would mean completely rewriting and reorganizing the whole article, right? If not, then how else to implement? George Ho (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it needs any "complete rewrite". GeogSarge's proposal just involves changing the lead to attibute the debate (some sources say X, some say Y), and make sure the article frames it as disputed. Most of the article does not need changing, the background, superpowers in the 1940s do not need changes. The structure is the same, inviting someone at WP:GOCE to fix tone afterwards. I don't get how hard it is to implement. Option A and Option B are clearly pointed out to be "not supported by sources" by the closer and "Most supporters of both options relied significantly on personal opinion, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. In line with precedent I'll be assessing consensus through strong !votes based in our policy and guidelines—whether explicitly or otherwise—and somewhat discounting of others and those that did not address such arguments." (NPOV) It is still a decent amount of work, but it is not your "complete rewrite starting from scratch". We cannot leave biased information in Wikipedia, right?

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh... Just changing the introduction, huh? ... ... I still don't like China being presented in the "After the Cold War" section as a "superpower", and it's not relegated to "Potential superpower", but... whatevs... for now. If just changing how to introduce China as a superpower in the lead is the main goal, then... all right. Still, I wouldn't encourage Sinophobia in any way primarily based on China as a "superpower". (Thinking about Russophobia during the Cold War......) George Ho (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead is the most important part of the article, where it summarizes the article. (LEAD) It should reflect the full range of views neutrally, rather than leaning towards one side (which is either option A or option B). (NPOV) As of "Sinophobia", there is no reliable source stating that, and this statement plus "Russophobia" is irrelevant to the discussion. Let's keep the discussion back to the policy, and not personal worldviews.16dvnk (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: perhaps this could also be put on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Maybe someone there could help. I understand a DRN was just opened, and don't really know the rules around the two. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 09:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The NPOV noticeboard says to (re)read the NPOV policy and the FAQ page first. As it also says, the issue cannot be unrelated to the neutral point of view. Well, the article's due weight is disputed, obviously.

However, also, the RFC closure is not NPOV-related, IMO. Even how Paul interprets the closure is not NPOV-related either, IMO. Whether to create another RFC isn't NPOV-related either. Let's deal with these disputes first before heading to NPOV about the article's balance and all that's related. George Ho (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think @GeogSage is trying to state that the RFC closure and processes is NPOV-related. He is stating that the current article itself violates NPOV and has undue weight. The cleanup tags itself flag imbalance and dispute, which are NPOV issues. I believe the DRN is the right venue to resolve this, then after a consensus we can head for the NPOV noticeboard (if necessary at all). Thank you for your attention. 16dvnk (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment,

If we need an RFC after the DRN, then I propose:

A: China is a superpower.

B: China is only an emerging superpower.

C: China is an emerging superpower, and there is debate about if China is already a superpower. (no need to say yes/no, just cover the debate, in history and similar reliable sources, there is no "right or wrong" unless it is unanimous.)

D. Remove the "emerging superpowers" section. (very unlikely but still for the sake of it)

That is my proposal.

Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I like B and D ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Option B support relied overwhelmingly on personal opinion. I mentioned that and why it contradicts Wikipedia's precedent in my close. Neither that source nor any precedent was presented by Option B !voters nor was precedent presented by supporters of other options countered. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOCON describes No Consensus as the following: No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. There was no even divide in my point of view as there was clearly one proposal that gained traction.

Also, I want to apologize for accusing you and @George Ho of some form of deliberate collaboration. That is not the case, but I still fundamentally disagree with the reasoning for the closure. PaulRKil (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

clearly there wasn't one proposal that got traction. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There was nearly two-to-one support for option B. PaulRKil (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

people are still debating this though. Which means there is no consensus. It's not like most people in the world view China as a superpower. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

We really need to start adding links to reliable sources in their assertions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

For the third time, the numbers doesn't matter when the arguments behind them are strongly discounted for the reasons I have said. See NotHeadCount. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, I didn't even realize that was an accusation . You're right that coordination is very bad. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

For now, let us hold a short consensus:

Option A: Revert to the status quo @Aaron Liu mentioned, then discuss (DRN mediator questions WITHOUT back-and-forth) (or at least, a minimal amount and only on this talk page).

Option B: Revert to the status quo (same as Option A), then continue the back-and-forth discussion on the DRN.

Option C: DO NOT revert to the status quo and instead continue back-and-forth discussion on the DRN.

Option D: DO NOT revert to the status quo and instead discuss (without back-and-forth, same as Option A) on DRN by answering mediator questions, and a minimal amount of back-and-forth discussion on this talk page.

Option E: TBD

Thank you for your attention, and having this short consensus would be pretty beneficial, and it would decide the future of our DRN.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Would the status quo be the article in this form? PaulRKil (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you missed @Aaron Liu's latest message in the DRN. I would advise you to read that, but in short, the status quo is Option B of the original RFC (i.e. the "China is a superpower" option) (which is the version you showed) 16dvnk (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it, sorry there's so much discussion in multiple places that it is hard to follow. PaulRKil (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Without knowing which status quo is good and appropriate, I can't figure out which reversion to revert back to. Maybe this one before the RFC (revision link), which still portrays China as a rising "superpower" somehow? (differences between this revision and that) George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu said "Option B", the one which was stable for 1 month... I think it is the one @George Ho showed up here, but it is a little messy, so it would be great for @Aaron Liu to clarify which exact revision is the status quo.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be very disruptive to insist on reverting to a version before the RfC thanks to the many unrelated changes made in the meantime. I don't see a reason we need to do that when the RKil's preferred revision gives pretty much the same big idea as that revision. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the introduction part of that old revision should suffice, but that's about it. No need to revert the rest of the article back to what it was pre-RFC. In other words, reverting back just the introduction and leaving the rest alone, right? Needless to say, the now-concluded RFC discussion closed by Aaron was about just the introduction to the article, wasn't it? —George Ho (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree.

• Just reverting the lead does nothing. The lead section should summarize the entire article. However, this mixture makes the lead not summarize anything.
• I don't think @Aaron Liu nor the RFC suddenly was just about the lead; it has always been about the entire article. 16dvnk (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In any case, the main question of the RFC was neither well thought out nor clearer, IMO. Seems that it went for A/B method instead of the yes/no one... in multiple options. (No offense, Moxy.) Even, as Aaron summarized, the whole article is currently neither stable nor unbiased, and to accept it as status quo? ...... —George Ho (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it was clear it was about the status of China throughout the article, though I do see how the presentation made it look like just the lede. If we really want to revert, I would say to 9 July 2026, as it's before the removal of Option B content. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The question is if we even should revert, but it does not seem like anyone as directly answered that other than you (@Aaron Liu). 16dvnk (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: In 2022, I did some work on the lede and the way I approached this seemed pretty benign. I recently looked up for the DRN, and the text was:

Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, with the leading candidates being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia."World Superpowers 2022". Retrieved 13 April 2022.

The source I used was World Population Review, a website that aggregates data from various sources, digests it, and publishes conclusions. That source seems to have since been removed, I'm not sure if it was because it was unreliable or just the gradual changes over time. Regardless, the Webpage lists sources for how they came to these conclusions that could be incorporated into the article. I think that something like that text from 2022, saying "scholars debate," and then listing some common examples, could resolve most of the problems. We could elaborate to state something like "the public and politicians often use the term superpower more loosely then academics to describe various countries, including in specific domains like military, economic, and cultural spheres of influence." Any results should reflect the ambiguity of the term, and the fact the lists are disputed. Hell, there are reliable sources that cast doubt on the status of the United States as a superpower, and they might have a point. Superpowers might no longer exist at all, and great power might again be the best way to describe the most powerful global powers.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have re-read the old RFC and I have found a pretty good insight:

"How about ‘Undisputed Superpower’ for America, ‘Disputed Superpower’ for China, and ‘Potential Superpower for India, EU and (debatably) Russia? We can also make a new category of Britain and Russia as former superpowers ~2026-20091-64 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)"

• This might be pretty useful, as this is neutral, and we can provide both sides of the argument of why China is disputed, while showing that America is an "undisputed superpower". Potential Superpower for India, EU, and Russia would align with our current article. However, I find the term "undisputed superpower" undue, as America is undergoing a debated decline, and its superpower status is not 100% undisputed, though most reliable sources say so. Perhaps "Superpower" on its own or "Primary superpower" or some alternative. We can discuss this.

This classification in my opinion seems better than either Option A or Option B that we have. This can be split into C2, where C1 would be my first RFC proposal's Option C.

Are there any questions? What do you guys think?

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we should move this to the DRN now. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How about we just follow what sources actually say, instead of trying to make things up? The U.S. status as a superpower is disputed in the literature, both in terms of U.S. decline, and because the term "hyperpower" has been used to describe it as beyond superpower. If you need sources, they exist at both of those links, and I can get more. "Insight" should be based on reliable sources, not the ramblings and opinions of editors personal worldviews. As stated above though, there is an open DRN, and reading these back and forth discussions as they spiral is becoming tedious. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Following WP:reliable sources and WP:core content policies is one thing. Trying to propose a version A and a version B in one RFC discussion is another. Prioritizing rules over common sense would be also another... right? If another RFC discussion is out of option, then what else would you propose? George Ho (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I tried to offer a potential framework, but I agree that we should not impose our own taxonomy on the sources. Instead of using these names in the actual article (used them for explaining my view, perhaps people may have misunderstood me to actually use them in the article?). We should present that China is debated, and just show academic sources that support both sides, whether they call the US a superpower, debate China's status whatever. Just say what the sources say. I do think your 2022 "

• Comment: In 2022, I did some work on the lede and the way I approached this seemed pretty benign. I recently looked [4] up for the DRN, and the text was: Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, with the leading candidates being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia.

"

source is interesting. That might be the correct approach. Let's focus on summing up the literature. Sorry again for the ambiguous wording. Now, let's try to cease the discussion because I feel like the back-and-forth is not going anywhere.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've read over 40 books on IR and related topics and I have never encountered the term "hyperpower" as far as I understand only one person proposed it back in the early 2000s and it didn't actually get traction. About the US decline is discussed in political debates however I have yet to encounter a book or other reliable source that actually argues that the US is no longer a superpower. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S.

Correction:

It seems like some editors may have misunderstood my framework. Upon re-reading, I have realized I may have framed it incorrectly. What I meant was that this framework was supposed to structure discussion, and it was exploratory. I have unintentionally made others think it is a taxonomy to be written into the article, but what I meant was that China's status is debated, and we should present sources for both sides, while The US status should also be presented as it appears in sources. I thought stating that China is "disputed" because it is debated and US "primary" because it is less debated was fine, but I have realized that it created misunderstandings. However, now the problem is how we can classify China without coining different terms. We can discuss this in the DRN.

Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the DRN case has closed due to excessive back-and-forth. I have reminded you guys and showed the past case failing (SCUM Manifesto) and McClenon's lesson learnt. As a passerby, I have no obligation to continue discussion with this article, and the best way forward now is to do an RFC. I hope I have been useful and thank you very much for your attention.

In the future, if you want any DRN to succeed, follow the rules. Thank you.

Good luck to the future of the article.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In the future, if you want any DRN to succeed, follow the rules.

With all due respect, I dunno which DRN rules are official other than.... well, WP:DR policy. As long as they agree part of an essay, I don't see the point of enforcing Robert's (unofficial) rules, honestly. If I wanna file for another DRN case, I really hope another volunteer other than Robert steps in. Otherwise, seems like DRN is heading toward the path of the now-defunct WP:MedCom, IMO.

Meanwhile, I hope GeogSafe allows eventually another RFC, right? Why focus first on sources, which, IMO, led to a "no consensus" RFC result? Indeed, we can worry about the sources at this time. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

First, at DRN, the rules are you listen to the moderator. That is the whole point, otherwise you're just moving the discussion onto a new venue. The moderator set rules, you didn't follow them, and then you argued about the rules when this was pointed out. Second, I'm not a gatekeeper of RfC, there is literally nothing I can do to allow or disallow anything. Third, your opinion on sources is irrelevant, as are unsourced opinions. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Any opinion or argument that is not backed by sources should be ignored, they only get in the way of building an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

First, at DRN, the rules are you listen to the moderator. That is the whole point, otherwise you're just moving the discussion onto a new venue. The moderator set rules, you didn't follow them, and then you argued about the rules when this was pointed out.

As I see, the "follow the moderator instructions" was added by Galendalia in 2020. Drmargi tried to revert it back, but the revert was undone. Well... the rest is... history? Perhaps we should address the unnoticed changed attempt at WT:DRN then before filing another DRN. Indeed, the "follow the moderator instructions" part shouldn't be there in the first place, and Galendalia is now globally (b)locked.

Second, I'm not a gatekeeper of RfC, there is literally nothing I can do to allow or disallow anything.

All right. I guess the TA who made this comment isn't a gatekeeper either, huh?

Third, your opinion on sources is irrelevant, as are unsourced opinions.

Any opinion or argument that is not backed by sources should be ignored, they only get in the way of building an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE).

Are we gonna format another RFC to something way almost similar to (the format of) the last RFC discussion, i.e. another A/B RFC discussion? If that's not what you meant, then must I put sources first before another RFC discussion? Which sources must we discuss then besides academic sources? George Ho (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I really don't care about 6 year old Wikipedia drama, DRN has been that way for a long time and it seems to be the consensus that the moderator instructions should be followed. Why would you bother to file at DRN if you had no intention of following moderator instructions? I could understand if you had an initial lapse and failed to realize the faux pas, but it really seems like you've double downed on that.

People are allowed to be against a new RfC, that doesn't give them power. Temp accounts have less power then most editors.

Any "option" should be informed by a balanced view of reliable sources first. I have presented multiple ways to do that which avoid making definitive statements in WP:WIKIVOICE about what countries are or are not examples of a poorly defined, relative, abstract concept. This debate about China fails to capture the broader issue, there are many countries presented as superpowers in the literature, with a variety of arguments and caveats applied to each. I have sources listed on this talk page that make arguments for India, Russia, Japan, and even South Korea being varieties of "superpowers." There are cases to be made for the European Union, NATO, and a variety of other entities. It is not hard to capture this complexity unless we make it hard. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• I really don't care about 6 year old Wikipedia drama, DRN has been that way for a long time and it seems to be the consensus that the moderator instructions should be followed.

  You don't, but I do. I'll raise the issue soon at WT:DRN about the changes made six years ago.

  Why would you bother to file at DRN if you had no intention of following moderator instructions?

  I never intended to disobey the "instructions", but I never intended to file a DRN request either. I just wanted to jump to another RFC since ways to present the info about China have been debated so far.

  Any "option" should be informed by a balanced view of reliable sources first. I have presented multiple ways to do that which avoid making definitive statements in WP:WIKIVOICE about what countries are or are not examples of a poorly defined, relative, abstract concept.

  Isn't the WP:WIKIVOICE shortcut content-related, not discussion-related? I have found and read WP:TALKPOV, WP:TALK#FACTS and WP:TALKHEADPOV. Unsure whether the WP:TPG requires people to cite sources before arguing, honestly.

  This debate about China fails to capture the broader issue, there are many countries presented as superpowers in the literature, with a variety of arguments and caveats applied to each. I have sources listed on this talk page that make arguments for India, Russia, Japan, and even South Korea being varieties of "superpowers." There are cases to be made for the European Union, NATO, and a variety of other entities. It is not hard to capture this complexity unless we make it hard.

  Uh... We can debate on the general concept of a superpower someday or even other countries. Trying to broaden the topic for another RFC discussion is not what I have intended to do. Neither is debating every other country unless the time is right. Indeed, I'd rather focus first on China before debating on other areas, like (again) a superpower concept. George Ho (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:George Ho writes: I never intended to disobey the "instructions", but I never intended to file a DRN request either. I just wanted to jump to another RFC since ways to present the info about China have been debated so far. Then what were you trying to do when you made post to DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I really hoped another DRN volunteer stepped in. Unsurprisingly, I figured you might have jumped in since you've frequently volunteered at WP:DRN. I had not realized until now that the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard/Header was changed in 2020, i.e. six years ago, without proven consensus... unless WP:EDITCONSENSUS or part of WP:PAG was implemented somehow. (Again, I'd like to raise the matter at WT:DRN soon.)

  Furthermore, I really had hoped that GeogSage would relent and be okay with me starting another RFC, but then GeogSage just (IMO) stubbornly has insisted on using reliable sources first before making another RFC. Also, I had hoped for a suitable status quo, but we don't have one right now. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are in the minority here. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:George Ho hasn't answered the question. He said that he never intended to file a DRN request, but that is exactly what he did by posting a DRN request to DRN. Was this a non-DRN request DRN request? Is a post to DRN something other than a DRN request if it is in support of an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Does this matter anymore? The DRN request was a "failure" as you indicated. If I file for another DRN request, I promise that I'll be more serious about needing the DRN, but first I'll soon raise the matter about the 2020 change. Would that do for you, Robert? George Ho (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  It only matters because accuracy is a scholarly duty, and I wanted to know whether what you said made sense. You said that you never intended to file a DRN request and filed a DRN request. One explanation for that inconsistency is sloppiness. I wanted to know if there was another explanation. I am concluding that what you said is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I wanted to know if there was another explanation. I am concluding that what you said is incorrect.

  If that matters, then here goes: I either was implicitly pressured or pushed into filing a DRN request. I was initially hesitant to request a help at DRN because I dunno anyone other than you frequently volunteering the DRN. Furthermore, how you and I have interacted may have factored my initial hesitancy to participate in DRN.

  Furthermore, aside from you, I was very unsure whether the DRN is needed but rather getting in the way of initiating another RFC, which apparently some others have never wanted all along. Before seeking other reliable sources, I had been initially hesitant to consider China a "superpower" merely because reliable Western news media and Donald Trump have done so. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you file another DRN request, you will have to wait for another volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fine by me. Admittedly, you and I have been oil and water (struggling to mesh well together) all over Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would not suggest making a fuss about the 2020 change, which is absolutely right even if it was made by a sockmaster. I think that you will have a hard time finding editors who think that guidance to follow moderator instructions should be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for trying to dissuade me from doing so, but I'll still wanna start... without trying to make a fuss of it too much, all right? The even if part still doesn't convince me that there is a consensus favoring the change and/or against removing the "follow moderator instructions" part. I'd still like to hear other editors' opinions before making any further steps, all right? Id est if editors explictly accept the changes, then I won't pursue further. George Ho (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment, When I was in the DRN, I expected everyone to follow the moderator instructions. I did not see anyone challenge the rules before the DRN. Even if the rule was added in by some sockmaster, those rules (structured discussion, @Robert McClenon's help) would have helped our case. The rules also ensure that the discussion is disciplined (unlike SCUM Manifesto and now Superpower). Hence, I accept the DRN rules and agree that the rules should be followed. Also, let's focus back to the core dispute about "Superpower" and not change the topic to some DRN closure frustration. Thank you for your attention.

  Sincerely,

  16dvnk (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  P.S. The rule has been the status quo for 6 years, and yet no one challenged it. However, only after the DRN failed you have attempted to dispute the rules. That's too late. If you really thought the rules were bad, you could have not filed the case yourself. 16dvnk (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you really thought the rules were bad, you could have not filed the case yourself.

  Certainly untrue. On the contrary, an average Joe would've overlooked the instructions as I had had all along... or couldn't care less about them, huh? I've never visited DRN much because... well, I haven't needed it much. My last DRN participation was almost six years ago, and it was closed not because I didn't obey the "moderator instructions" but because of different matter.

  Also, let's focus back to the core dispute about "Superpower" and not change the topic to some DRN closure frustration.

  In that case, shall I disregard Robert's advice and then go ahead to continue at WT:DRN? George Ho (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC); struck, 08:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Never mind that. The matter is raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Guidance for DRN instead by... well, Robert. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have re-read the entire history.

  I am not here to assign blame. I am in no position to do so. However, I want to de-escalate.

  I understand that @Robert McClenon's sudden close due to a reply was very frustrating. It happens to all of us, especially the filing editor. It is difficult to understand both sides at once, and all I can say to resolve this is for both sides to actively assume good faith, because I now understand that this is definitely a misunderstanding. I know that both sides have been frustrated and exchanged some sarcastic comments, but please speak more plainly as that does not help. In fact, that might make things worse (a trend that I am seeing). I hope you can de-escalate with @Robert McClenon.

  However, the DRN is closed. We cannot do anything rewrite history, or re-open the DRN. Focusing on the article dispute and the NPOV noticeboard would be the better path forward.

  Thank you for your participation, and I am not going to engage further in the DRN rules. We can discuss the article in other topics and move on from this frustrating DRN closure. I urge both sides to step away from escalating this further (I can see some talks about going as far as WP:VPP or WP:VPM). Good luck.

  I do not plan to weigh in or assign blame to either side. That is what the village pump is for. I just hope for both sides to resolve the secondary dispute quickly. and then return to the article dispute.

  Best regards,

  16dvnk (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  We are discussing content, it is a waste of time to discuss possible content that is not rooted in sources. The focus on China is only one small part of the issue, and misses the point entirely. We can address the issue all at once by simply reflecting the literature. No entity IS a definitive superpower, framing the issue otherwise is failing to reflect the literature. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Let's continue at #So is China a superpower?, shan't we? If broadening the scope for RFC, the RFC question would be "What is superpower? How do reliable sources back up your argument?" Isn't that right? On the contrary, I want to narrow the scope down for another RFC, so I'll reply further down there then. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments for User:George Ho About Moderator Language

I have discussed at Village Pump Miscellanous what if anything should be done about the language in the MFD instructions saying to follow moderator instructions. Several editors agree that that language is useful and desirable, regardless of whether it was written by a now-banned user. I suggest that User:George Ho has the following options about that language, which resulted in the failure of the DRN case:

1. Do nothing. Accept that the language that you disregarded was correct.
2. Discuss the language at the DRN talk page. This page is not heavily viewed. You may or may not encounter support for the rule or opposition to a change in the rule.
3. Discuss the language at Village Pump Miscellanous. You will be told, either politely or rudely, that the language is needed and should be kept.
4. Revert the language in the DRN header. It may be reverted, or it may result in an RFC to formalize the language.
5. Submit an RFC to remove the language. The language will be kept in 30 days.
6. Do nothing. Accept that the language was correct.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the dispute on China being a "superpower". Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Superpower". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! George Ho (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

We can continue our discussion here until the discussion is formally opened:

Thank you.

16dvnk (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not plan to come back to a DRN or RFC. I apologize to @Robert McClenon for the frustration. More details about the closure can be found here.

Once again, the best to this article.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So is China a superpower?

It seems that a consensus was reached that China is already a superpower of equal status to the US. Now the article has been reverted to resemble the earlier version where the US is presented as the sole superpower and China is clearly one tier below. This does not make sense at all. Even if no resolution was reached in the DRN, it seems that the best temporary compromise is to present China as a superpower—perhaps a close second to, if not equal to, the US.

Major publications like the NYT, WSJ, and BBC and western leaders like Donald Trump regularly refer to China as a superpower. Therefore the "default" should be to treat China as a superpower, UNLESS there is a good reason not to. The current article position is at least 10 years out of data. ~2026-38806-52 (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Why exactly do we keep opening new discussions for the same thing? Here is text that will work:

A superpower is a sovereign state or supranational union that holds a dominant position characterized by the ability to exert influence and project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined means of economic, military, technological, political, and cultural strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the great powers. While a great power state is capable of exerting its influence globally, superpowers are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue. There is considerable academic debate around what constitutes a superpower and what countries to include, and some countries are referred to as superpowers in specific categories, such as military, economic, energy, or soft power.

In 1944, during World War II, the term was first applied to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States. During the Cold War, the British Empire dissolved, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate world affairs. At the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the dominant power across multiple domains, a position sometimes referred to as a hyperpower. Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, and public perception of the topic ranges widely, with the leading candidates generally being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia. The most commonly accepted extant superpower today is still the United States, however there is considerable debate on this . Some sources believe that due to a decline in relative power, the U.S. no longer meets the criteria, while other sources have argued that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. is in a greater relative position, even going as far as to coin the term hyperpower to refer to U.S. dominance in a unipolar world.

Probably needs work, and I just threw some sources on there for the particularly controversial claims, but I don't think text like this would be particularly problematic and would solve some of the squabbling. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I do believe that Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, and public perception of the topic ranges widely, with the leading candidates generally being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia is out of date and reflects the late 2010s rather than the contemporary period. The biggest indicator of that would be Russia still being called a 'leading candidate' when they have largely underperformed in every metric possible since it went to war with Ukraine in 2022. I can't think of anyone seriously considering Russia a potential superpower in 2026 outside of sources linked to Russia themselves. PaulRKil (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

"Whether Russia is a global superpower in today’s world is a matter of some debate." We aren't discussing our opinions of what makes something a superpower or not, we are specifically summarizing the source material. There is still debate around Russia, and terms like "Energy superpower" are still tossed around in regards to Russia, although that is debated as well, with sources like Russia’s Demise as an Energy Superpower stating "Russia’s status as an energy superpower is waning." This is made more complex when nuclear weapons are looked at, for example a 2026 CNN article states, "Its continued status as a nuclear superpower, on a roughly equal footing with the United States, guaranteed even a weakened Moscow a place at the top table of international diplomacy." We can get into the debates within the body of the article, but it is absolutely safe to say this is a debate. What we should not do is try to come up with metrics ourselves, and take a specific stance based on whatever metrics we invent. Reliable sources that describe an entity as a superpower or not are what we need to look at. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, why continuing the debate about the term itself and of discussing which content version to use (to reflect what the sources say about the term itself)? Also, are we trying another status quo without going to another RFC, or what else are we doing? George Ho (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage, you are arguing something completely different, introducing terminology that needlessly expands the scope of this article to complete unreadability, and doesn't answer the key question about whether or not China is a superpower. By introducing a nearly endless list of what countries are superpowers in some industry, we may as well scrap this article entirely and turn it into something titled List of Countries Considered A Superpower in an Industry or Sector. We know what Superpower means in its modern context and tediously going back to "well what about countries that are x superpowers" is off topic. PaulRKil (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Scope: "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are usually to be avoided." In my opinion, you are needlessly limiting the scope of the article, and if you can't read the stuff I proposed, that says more about you then the average reader. I answered the "key question" about all "superpowers," there aren't any definitive ones, only debate. This applies to the U.S., China, Russia, India, the EU, and others. It is a complex discussion, not sports team rankings. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

"we know what a superpower is in today's context" excuse me? No we don't. It is a matter of debate as are many things in politics and international relations I think as evident by this entire talk page. I'm with GeogSage on this. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The bit about the British Empire is a bit too loose. It has never "dissolved" in a dramatic way. Arguably, it lasted until 1997 if not later. We don't need to make a claim when it dissolved here.

My proposal:

The term was coined in 1944 towards the end of World War II, referring to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Following the blowback of the Suez Canal Crisis and a period of rapid decolonization, the British Empire saw a steep decline, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the preeminent superpowers of the Cold War. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the sole dominant power across multiple domains - a position frequently referred to as a hyperpower. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I made the change about British Empire. This shouldn't be controversial. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Major publications like the NYT, WSJ, and BBC and western leaders like Donald Trump regularly refer to China as a superpower. Therefore the "default" should be to treat China as a superpower, UNLESS there is a good reason not to.

You cited western publications... and Donald Trump, right? Why not peer-reviewed scholarly journals? Also, other reliable sources out there might or might not contradict your stance about China as a superpower. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Even the United States is not universally considered to be a superpower today. This is an abstract debated term, nothing IS a definitive superpower. For example, according to the Hoover Institution, in the book China After Mao (book), Frank Dikötter argues that "far from being a true superpower, China remains fundamentally fragile: an empire held together by repression, propaganda, and paranoia." There are a wide variety of reliable sources, including scholarly ones, that discuss this and take a variety of stances. My stance is that there are multiple stances, and we should reflect that and not pick one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If I focus more on sources, then I would be less likely able to construct another RFC as I have wanted all along. Indeed, finding reliable sources would take much longer than you anticipate, right? George Ho (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would we ever bother with an RFC that isn't discussing what the sources say? The opinions of editors on content are irrelevant, we summarize reliable sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, a closer of another RFC would do the same thing as Aaron Liu did: disregard arguments that aren't backed up by reliable sources. Nevertheless, despite WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY (shortcuts to the WP:NOT policy), let's not try to control (too much of) what people will say in the next RFC, shall we? George Ho (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't control what anyone says. You are spinning in circles looking for an absolute answer where none exists. It is possible to cherrypick sources to support multiple claims. The answer is that we should reflect that and not pick one POV. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the cherry-picking method in discussions, but the WP:cherrypicking essay (not an official rule) discourages cherry picking generally. (The last sentence implies avoiding cherrypicking, right?) George Ho (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The cherry picking essay refers to it in the context of Wikipedia, where a person cherrypicks information from a single source. I'm using it in the more general context that it is used outside Wikipedia, where someone seeks out sources or data to support a specific conclusion while not presenting sources or data that might contradict the desired outcome. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho, it is inherently reasonable that Western publications and the President would have incentive to argue the opposite and the fact they aren't is remarkable in its own right, and even if we cited Eastern sources, there is a good chance they'd be overwhelmingly from China and if they argued that China was a superpower, we would discount them based on the fact they're sourced from Chinese publications. That represents a bit of a paradox. Even with that in mind, more recent journalistic entries conclude China is a Superpower. For example, David A. Lake, writing in the Chinese Journal of International Politics, repeatedly refers to the United States and China as “the superpowers” and describes China as “a global superpower.” There's also Jennifer Lund's piece in Foreign Policy Mag saying the same. These are from 2026 and 2025, respectively.

But to your point, I'd be interested in seeing what Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino sources say regarding China's position as a superpower though again, these nations tend to be western aligned and it could be argued they wouldn't pass the smell test if we are looking at Western Bias. PaulRKil (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Scholarly journals referring China and the US as "superpowers"

• Nguyen Cong Tung: ProQuest 3257575369, doi:10.1142/S1013251125500080
• Tomasz Wójtowicz: doi:10.2478/ppsr-2025-0012, ProQuest 3285656478
  • Also refers Russia as a "superpower"
• A Brazilian paper: doi:10.5209/geop.98687, ProQuest 3274184628
  • Refers both nations as such only in the Abstract
• two Vietnamese scholars: doi:10.14505/tpref.v16.4(36).09, ProQuest 3308202077
  • refers China as an emerging power threatening US's "superpower" status
    • dunno what to make about this paper, honestly

Any more scholarly journals to pull up then? George Ho (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources that do refer to them as that. There are also reliable sources that muddy the waters around the topic (I've included links to several, and can get more, but citing everything is Wikipedia:Citation overkill). This is why I proposed, "Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, and public perception of the topic ranges widely, with the leading candidates generally being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia." There isn't a definitive answer, sources exist for multiple. You are trying to make something ambiguous appear certain. Text that says "China is/is not a superpower," or "the United States is/is not a superpower" is not reflecting the literature. Any attempt to settle on one answer is a pointless waste of time because proponents of the other POV can find sources to back their belief. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Text that says "China is/is not a superpower," or "the United States is/is not a superpower" is not reflecting the literature.

How are the above not reflecting the literature? Also, what sort of literature, whose Wikipedia article says that many written forms exemplify what a literature is? (FWIW, not gonna include fictional works as part of "literature" reflecting how much of a superpower China actually is.) George Ho (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I've almost never worked on this article until my attempts to relegate China into a "potential superpower" were reverted. Indeed, I read PaulRKil's thread at Talk:Second Cold War requesting more emphasis on China–US relations and putting the Russia–US one at the backburner.

If the latest dispute about China as a superpower results in making China a "superpower", then... I might not interfere further in this article. The rest of you can decide how to present the article, while Paul and I will continue discussing about China in the Second Cold War.

However, if the dispute results in relegating China into a "potential superpower" or omitting China completely from this article, then.... dunno how to decide about this article, but info about China in other articles should reflect what this article says about China (as a superpower). George Ho (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm still brainstorming another RFC discussion about China as a "superpower", so here goes:

Multiple reliable sources have called China a "superpower". Some other reliable sources have questioned China's "superpower" potential. Per reliable sources, is China fully a superpower? If not, then can China be relegated into a "potential superpower" candidate, or how else can China be mentioned in this article?

• Option A: China is a superpower as defined by reliable sources.
• Option B: China is not a superpower as defined by reliable sources
  • B1: Relegate China into the "Potential superpowers" section, and omit China elsewhere in the article
  • B2: Omit China completely from this article
  • B3: (How much of a "superpower" China is can be further discussed after the RFC)
• Option C: (can't think of an Option C at this time; won't add it in the next RFC.... yet)

On further note, I won't be proposing two versions almost similar to the previous RFC, which has gotten us to where we are now. Indeed, I'd like the discussion to be more open and more expressive, despite GeogSage's concerns about arguments not fully supported by reliable sources. George Ho (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Your proposed RFC is not bad as a start. I am still out on this dispute, but I'll leave some comments:

• Add an Option C about presenting that China's status is disputed? In my previous proposed RFC I had that option, and it seems better than A/B because it will not form another deadlock (this RFC is very similar to the previous "No consensus" RFC)
• Option A2: According to NPOV, most reliable sources claim that China is a superpower. However, there is a significant minority view that China may not be a superpower, so we should write that in as well.
• Option B4: According to NPOV, most reliable sources claim that China is not a superpower. However, there is a significant minority view that China may be a superpower, so we should write that as well.
• Further refine the framings of your options. Don't say "Multiple" have called superpower but then "some other" have questioned superpower "potential".
• Option B2: If you omit China, then you must omit others like the EU or Russia, which does not make sense. A previous RFC has stated that Emerging superpower should be combined into Superpower, so this option may be removed.

Thank you. All the best to this article!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho You are approaching the problem wrong. China is defined by reliable sources as a superpower, but is also defined as not a superpower by reliable sources. China should not be omitted, and this is not a situation unique to just China, but all of the countries we could list as superpowers. Wikipedia has solutions for this situation, and I've shown what an implementation of that would look like. I'm really not sure why you're insisting on ignoring that and discussing an RfC, much less framing it in such a way that it appears to be an either/or situation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has solutions for this situation, and I've shown what an implementation of that would look like. I'm really not sure why you're insisting on ignoring that and discussing an RfC, much less framing it in such a way that it appears to be an either/or situation.

ignoring what exactly? You mean something related to general definition of "superpower", right? Whatever I was supposedly ignoring, that wasn't my intention. I just have been more focused on whether China exemplifies a superpower, but then I just recently realized that reliable sources have been much harder to dispute. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho, thank you for providing these. Regarding the Vietnamese article where you don't know what to make of it, the abstract does end with Developing nations must adopt proactive, neutral diplomacy to strengthen internal capacities, while they should avoid positioning themselves as adversaries to either superpower. but as admittedly skim-read it, it talks about China threatening America's position as the leading Superpower. I think that language is important, it qualifies the US as a leading Superpower not the sole Superpower. It also says on page on 927 Moreover, both powers actively sought to recruit developing nations as strategic allies. These states, however, needed to remain vigilant against the allure of either superpower.

My main question is, what is your position on China's status as a Superpower at this point? PaulRKil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Right now I'm torn. Personally, I really hate to see China called a superpower, but multiple sources have considered China such. We can include reliable sources challenging whether China is an actual superpower especially per NPOV policy.

GeogSage may be right about sources being more important than any other, but then what would proposing two or more versions do? ...Well, the proposed versions would be based on assumption that China is rightfully labeled a superpower, right? George Ho (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That is sort of where I was until recently. I wasn't sure where China was, but the more recent body of study concludes that China is a Superpower, particularly since 2024. Sources saying China is "emerging" tend to be pre-covid or immediately post-COVID and ones saying the USA is still the only sole superpower are from the early 2010s.

My issue with what @GeogSage is proposing is that I think what he is proposing are their own articles entirely. Yes, there are nations that may be Superpowers in Energy but they do not have the economic strength or military power projection that China has, let alone the US, in a way that allows it to be a global Superpower. PaulRKil (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain my broader vision (I'd be working on the page itself if the talk page wasn't a mess, and I'd like to overhaul a few parts). We have an article for energy superpower already, and could probably stand to create a page for military superpower, and some sort of cultural superpower page (which is currently a redirect). Making a full page from scratch though is daunting (and my sandbox is currently full of various articles in various stages of completion as it is), so it is easier to make sections on a parent article and when they become developed enough, spin it out to a new article. Generally, these sections have Template:Main linking them to the page that elaborates on the concept more. As it stands, we actually don't even have a link to energy superpower on this article, which seems like a bit of an oversight. In terms of Superpower, we can create sections for these sub-topics, and when they become developed enough, spin them into their own page while leaving a short summary on this page. Pretty standard stuff, and it is reasonable that a user might read some use of the term "military superpower" and wonder what the heck that is, and how it relates to plain old generic superpower. We currently do not have much that could satisfy this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This one (doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05359-w, ProQuest 3230024466) refers China as a "significant superpower" but finds its "soft power development [...] unsatisfactory."

Dunno what to make about this other one (doi:10.1080/24761028.2026.2653424, ProQuest 3353426520) other than that it refers China as some rising "superpower", that it's more about Russia–China relations, and that Russia may no longer be the "superpower" as Soviet Union was. George Ho (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I propose restoring the page version with US and China both as superpowers, which had broad support of many editors. There are now SO many reliable sources that describe them both superpowers that this cannot be dismissed. If we wanted to, we could easily cite like 100s of them verses a <10 that might disagree. I think it is fine to quote sources that disagree in the body of the text rather than the intro. ~2026-40933-11 (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(In from NPOVN - uninvolved) If we do not require attribution for all SP's, would we need one for China? Certainly there are academic sources that consider them so, nonetheless editors will still toss up news and opinion pieces. None that seems to disprove the classification, or specifically disproves all the other RS. It's an inherently opinionated label that should not be omitted rather than disputed. DN (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up! My personal opinion on this is nuanced, but I agree with you that "It's an inherently opinionated label that should not be omitted rather than disputed." Fundamentally, as far as I can tell, the largest body of sources for this topic would be on the U.S., China, and Russia. For these, there are reliable sources with a wide range of opinions (For example, there are sources for the U.S. that range from "Superpower label no longer applies because the U.S. is to strong relative to peers" to "the U.S. is no longer a Superpower because it is in decline." I have not seen Russia or China mentioned as a "hyperpower," but that term is not particularly widely used). I had proposed some changes to the lede above to try and reflect complexity rather then making absolute statements, you can see the dif here. Feedback was already given on this on the NPOV posting, so I'm sure it can be refined if something like that is settled on. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I support GeogSage's position on this. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. We also have to make sure to cite reliable recent sources, preferably within the last year. Anything 5 years or earlier would be considered outdated. ~2026-41049-56 (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, friends. Last month I edited the Chinese version of the page and listed China and US as extant superpowers. I stumbled on the page some days after Trump visited China, and the optics and news coverage didn't reconcile with the Chinese page so I made some edits.

My take is terms like superpower are more like rhetorical devices and it's probably not our place (as an encyclopedia) to prescriptively, definitively say whether China is or is not a superpower. If it's a subject of debate, then we just say it's still a subject of debate.

A descriptive, quantitative approach will be like scraping news articles, tweets, scholarly publications, and tally up how many authors reference both US and China as comparable world powers. If there is 80% agreement, then we state descriptively China is/is not a superpower. Absent that, we just state it's still a pending matter and leave it there. We can always revisit the determination at a later time. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree with most of the points made here. However, I want to clarify one part of your statement.

"A descriptive, quantitative approach will be like scraping news articles, tweets, scholarly publications, and tally up how many authors reference both US and China as comparable world powers. If there is 80% agreement, then we state descriptively China is/is not a superpower."

That seems to constitute WP:OR and similarly synth issues. Perhaps this may potentially be a misunderstanding, but in how you've framed it, that specific method does not seem to be policy compliant. Stating it is a pending matter seems more accurate.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe we are in Original Research territory. We are not developing arguments for or against either side ourselves. Our problem here is that we have so many sources we can cite, and they are going to be contradicting. If we cherry pick, this conversation will go nowhere.

If we find 80% of sources supporting one side, then we should quite confidently say most commentators/ researchers/whatever agree so. At the end of the day, we are citing that 80% of sources and not coming up with something new. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is my thoughts on how to achieve a neutral point of view for topics like this. If sources are so lopsided (just from the top of my head now, recency bias applies, I don't recall seeing any materials from the last few months not calling China a peer competitor of the US), like a 80-20 or even a 90-10, just saying the status is undecided would be a disservice to our readers, since it presents a false balance. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree here. Let me attempt to explain why:

• Tallying sources is a form of original analysis. We are not supposed to "count sources" to prove an analysis, unless multiple peer reviewed papers have done so. We also cannot define the scope of papers to count, and this just brings chaos, with others nitpicking which source is more "reliable" than another source. Details at WP:OR.
• Wikipedia assigns weight based on the prominence of views in reliable sources. Even if 80% of sources say X, it does not automatically mean that X is the consensus. The above RFC proves that fact that even though more Option B voters vote, it is not automatically a consensus. However, I do not know exactly about the quality of superpower sources or recall the "80-20" split you are referring to, so I cannot make a significant judgement.
• I understand your point though; you are concerned that this is undue (if your 80-20 figure holds true). At this case, look for reliable sources that says the consensus is X. Assuming that the 80-20 figure holds true, present the range of views. In one of the proposed RFCs, I proposed an Option A2 and Option B4. which is the scenario you are suggesting (and is supported by WP:NPOV).

Unless I am misinformed/misunderstanding the argument, this should be the course of action we should take. You may respond to this, but at this stage, it is better to wait for even more neutral editors to step in and keep the dispute disciplined. Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

We would be doing original research if we state in the main article with the direct voice after doing a literature review:

"80% of authors agree China is a superpower."

But that's not we are doing here.

We want decide if there's a majority-minority split or if it's an even split among the sources. We will place more weight on the majority view.

The exercise is to help ourselves form a consensus between option A2 and B4 and bring this debate to a conclusion. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Trying to decide if there is a "majority-minority split or if it's an even split among the sources" is a literature review and OR. We would need to have a methodology for selecting (and excluding) sources, and almost certainly would not capture every possible source. We would need to repeat this process for every country that is mentioned within the literature as a superpower. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

An alternative shortcut is to look at survey like this Gallup poll, which find US and China are each listed as superpower by 60% ish of respondents, and opinions are evenly split for Russia.

This is a poll on the general public, so it may not be as rigorous as scholarly work - but it's probably be a good enough anchor for us. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Gallup polls are a better approach then trying to make a list of sources we find and weighing their conclusions to find a definitive consensus. The fact remains though that we can find sources on multiple sides of the issue for each possible country we could include. We can say "60% of respondents to a Gallup poll believe China and the U.S. to be a superpower," but we can not say "China and the U.S. are a superpower." This would also be something to include in the body, rather then the lede. The lede should just state that there is debate, and give the most commonly cited examples, while preferencing this by saying they are all disputed in the literature. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. 16dvnk (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

So I've been looking at my proposal for the lede and have a suggested option based on feedback. If accepted, this would be supported with additional elaboration within the body of the article, with specific sections dedicated to individual countries that may be extant superpowers:

A superpower is a sovereign state or supranational union that holds a dominant position characterized by the ability to exert influence and project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined means of economic, military, technological, political, and cultural strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the great powers. While a great power state is capable of exerting its influence globally, superpowers are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue. There is considerable academic debate around what constitutes a superpower and what countries to include, and some countries are referred to as superpowers in specific categories, such as military, economic, energy, or soft power.

In 1944, during World War II, the term was first applied to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States. During the Cold War, the British Empire dissolved, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate world affairs. At the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the dominant power across multiple domains, a position sometimes referred to as a hyperpower. Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, and public perception of the topic ranges widely. The most commonly accepted extant superpower today is the United States, however there is considerable debate on this, and other candidates include China, the European Union, India, and Russia. Furthermore, the term is sometimes used in public discourse to describe a country in a specific category, such as Energy superpower, however there is little consistency in how these are are employed.

I believe this minimizes some of the issues that were brought up, and I've seen a few editors agree that something like this would be appropriate. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment, Not bad as a start, but I fear some may then dispute that the lead is still "too close to Option A"? I do think this is pretty neutral, but I can see that China is listed as just a "candidate" along with other countries, and others may misinterpret. This dispute has been too intense to track effectively, so I may stand corrected. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Under the umbrella of candidate, I include the United States and the other countries thrown into the discourse. They are all candidates. The only reason the U.S. really stands out is it is the only one that was pretty indisputably a superpower, the debate is mostly on if it remains one. The USSR was also indisputably a superpower at one point, however it is debated if Russia inherited the "super," and that is a more complex bit of literature. The wording is meant to lump them together while acknowledging the U.S. is generally the most commonly accepted/cited one (as far as I can tell). If needed, could drop that and just say:

Today there is considerable debate about what to include on the list of superpowers, with common candidates being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's perhaps a little too wordy for a lede. The history during WWII and cold war should probably move to a history section. (I don't think anyone called USSR a superpower DURING the war, it's usually after the war - but I could be wrong) Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is how I would write it for conciseness:

Although the exact criteria are contested, broad consensus holds that the United States remains a contemporary superpower. Meanwhile, China's expanding influence has led some scholars and publications to regard it as a rival superpower, while the EU, India, and Russia are also named as potential superpowers in various context. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I think would reduce the misunderstanding. This makes it more balanced. Thank you!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

"broad consensus holds that the United States remains a contemporary superpower." Personally, I agree with this, however I have read enough to know that there are a lot of people who don't. I would hold back on implying a strong consensus. There is large and vocal minority that makes some good (and important for our purposes, verifiable/reliable) dissenting points regarding the U.S. on this topic. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I observe the same thing. 16dvnk (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Most observers hold that the United States remains a contemporary superpower?

Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

i guess it's fair to say it's a 90-10 here Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Numbers are mixed, I don't know how many sources say one thing or another, but you cited a poll that states "When asked whether they consider the US to be a superpower in 2030, 61 % say yes while 24 % say no." This is a survey of 39,760 persons from 37 countries, and states, "The margin of error for the survey is between ±3 – 5 % at 95 % confidence level." One public opinion survey is not the same as a poll of policy experts, but it is probably not 90-10. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment,

According to WP:NPOV, it seems like that a somewhat significant minority exists, and hence we need to place some weight to the minority view. You are right that "most observers" consider America a superpower, but as long as a significant reliable minority view exists in the sources, we have to cover it. I may stand corrected.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless the consensus favors holding another RFC on the assumption about China as a "superpower", I have nothing else to add further at this time. Indeed, seems that the whole consensus and multiple reliable sources have considered China a "superpower", not just a "potential superpower". How much of a "superpower" China is may be further discussed without me involved for a while. I might respond back if any more reliable sources disputing China's "superpower" status come up. See ya! George Ho (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @George Ho very much for your valuable insight in this dispute. I learnt a lot! Once again, thank you very much!

Best regards,

16dvnk (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Uh.... Were you using some sort of a translator (or something else) for replying? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I'm quite confused.

How has the discussion "Is China a Superpower?" lead to where we are right now? We were trying to figure out whether China was a Superpower along with the United States or if it was a Potential Superpower in line with India, the European Union, and Russia. Saying that we don't know so therefore all of these nations might be superpowers is quite frankly out of line with the purpose of the article as is asserting the idea that NATO is a superpower when the first sentence of this article defines it as a "sovereign state or supranational union" which NATO, as a military alliance, is neither. Furthermore, what is even the point of the article Potential Superpower if this article is going to assert that India, Russia, and the EU are sometimes cited as superpowers when they are listed as potential superpowers there? Do we delete the article, say that the US is also a potential superpower, or do we start saying regional powers like Pakistan and Turkey are potential superpowers instead?

The bottom line is this: There is overwhelming contemporary and ongoing agreement both in public and academic discussion that China and the United States are the world's two contemporary Superpowers. While there may be some assertions that India, Russia, and the EU are Superpowers, they are small compared to the overwhelming body of research concluding that they are potential superpowers.

Additionally, we have spent almost a month gathering contemporary academic journals because we were told other sources were not sufficient for China to be considered a superpower, so why in the lede are we using a source from 2010 to say the EU is believed to be a superpower, using The Atlantic and Foreign Policy Mag for China, and using World Population Review for Russia? Are we only requiring hard academic sources for China while eschewing that requirement for every other country?

I'm sorry, but this article now feels like it is being fluffed up with noise to muddy up the idea that China is also a superpower along with the United States and that is below the standards of this site. PaulRKil (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Another perspective

The discussion here seems to assume "superpower" is a politically neutral and distinct category and that the key challenge before us is to decide what is or is not in that category. I think, perhaps, we should give more attention to "superpower" as a rhetorical / propaganda tool. In such context what is interesting is not whether China is a superpower but rather that some want it categorized as such and others do not. I am on vacation and don't have easy access to a computer but, when I get back, I'll look for some sources to support an adjusted article frame. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely an interesting perspective! It certainly isn't a neutral or well defined category. The motivation for why or why not someone would want a country to be in the category would be an interesting thing to include if we can find sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage This discussion is now beyond ridiculous. Wikipedia is apparently the only place on the internet that does not refer to China as a superpower. It's pretty obvious there are people who don't want China classified this way for political reasons.

The reality is, in common parlance, by international media, and in academic circles, there is widsspread agreement China is indeed, a superpower. The US is no longer as nearly as powerful or influential as it once was, and China is quite clearly the second most powerful country in the world, and in many metrics, has long blown past the US. And yet, we're still having this incredibly semantic and weird debate, when the rest of the world has already agreed on this point. Dunnowy123 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Please read the entire article history (RFC DRN) and related policies. You might find answers to your question there. Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this article currently has an MASSIVE section where writers are applying this label to historical entities such as the Malian or Kushite Empire, with almost no pushback, and yet, we can't "reliably" call China a superpower in 2026? Imagine a person coming to this article wanting to learn about the concept, only to leave with an impression that nothing has substantively changed since 1991 and the "superpower" concept can be applied to any powerful state during whatever time period. Dunnowy123 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing at a time, that section needs to be dramatically overhauled. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree the article looks anachronistic in 2026. I hope we can fix it soon. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"The world has already agreed on this point." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What I mean by that is there is broad consensus around the world, from high profile decision makers to laymen that China is a superpower.

At the end of the day, a superpower isn't really an academic term, it's a political term. We want the academic evidence to support it, but ultimately, it's not what a few academics are saying that determines what a superpower is or not. Anyone can find a Gordon Chang article where he once again predicts China's collapse to consistently make this article unreliable and out of date.

There is a reason why ONLY China is compared to the US (see here: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/ - reflecting public opinion). We see casual references to China as a superpower everywhere (see here: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-alleges-china-committed-2020-election-fraud-2026-07-17/, https://www.gzeromedia.com/news/analysis/chinas-a-global-superpower-in-football-not-so-much etc.) At this point, people constantly editing the article to remove China in 2026 makes the article far less valuable or relevant for information. Dunnowy123 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

We have a Gallup poll that shows a significant minority disagrees, as well as academic sources that disagree. The term was and is still a term used in academic circles, but like a lot of such terms, colloquial use has really muddied the waters. China is not the only country/organization compared to the United States. When we have multiple reliable sources that disagree with each other, we reflect that. The lede now does that in a way I hope will avoid many future debates on this (although I'm sure there is still room for improvement), so we can move on to improving the body of the article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage Can you give another example of a country consistently compared to the United States in this capacity? Which one? Dunnowy123 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Russia and the European Union are two entities compared to the United States regularly. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

I've posted this page at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Superpower_lede_and_content. I hope that we can get some uninvolved editors to help sort this out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I suggest that the involved editors should focus on listening to and discussing with the neutral editors at the noticeboard more than repeating themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Another path forward?

Thank you everyone for the participation and efforts to resolve this dispute.

However, it seems like nothing is working as effectively as we hoped:

• RFC (did not participate) resulted in No consensus and the closure caused a ton of chaos. The meaning of the closure has subsequently been clarified in a DRN...
• Back and forth discussion on talk page (did not participate) was ineffective. The same points were repeated over and over again.
• DRN had made some progress, since all sides presented their perspective, and multiple clarification questions had made the DRN helpful. Unfortunately, it got closed due to a dispute in the rules, which got resolved in a subsequent village pump.
• NPOV/N was suggested throughout the DRN. It finally got to effect. However, an abysmal amount of people joined, and other than adding ~2 neutral editors to the new back and forth on the talk page, it did not achieve much of anything.
• Continued article back and forth has achieved some compromises, and made some progress. However, at this rate, the dispute would take a long time.

As such, it may be time to move on from these methods. Continue back and forth on the talk page. It may not be the time for another RFC, since I fear it may result in another No consensus. We might have to escalate to another noticeboard, but I cannot think of another noticeboard which may resolve the dispute (maybe due to my inexperience).

I would propose (1) waiting for an admin to appear at NPOVN, or (2) refining the lead proposing back and forth.

I am also asking for opinions, involved/uninvolved alike, to see how we can solve this dispute in more effectiveness, without the procedure debates. Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have agreement on my proposal above?

"""

Lede

...(yap about cold war and post cold war)...

Today, although the exact criteria are contested, most observers hold that the United States remains a contemporary superpower.

On the other hand, China's expanding influence has led some scholars and publications to regard it as a rival superpower, while the EU, India, and Russia are also named as potential superpowers in various context.

...(yap about energy superpower, regulation superpower etc)...

"""

Then in the appropriate section we explain the both sides why US/China should/should not been seen as superpower.

In a nutshell,

• We acknowledge there's no clear definition.
• We acknowledge there's no absolute unanimous agreement which countries are superpowers today.
• We give due weights to US, China, and other contenders - in that order.

Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll let this sit for a few days, and do a bold edit if there's no opposition. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Made some bold changes I had been working on off Wiki before seeing this after seeing discussion was spiraling. Most changes are in line with this I believe and I designed it to be as benign and neutral as possible, lumping all of the contemporary contenders for extant superpower into one list without trying to weigh in on the arguments for each. The lede can be kept fairly short. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah indeed, I saw you propose:

"""

Today, scholars debate what countries to include in the list of superpowers, and public perception of the topic ranges widely, with the leading candidates generally being the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia.

"""

My thought is a flat list may be too stylistically dry.

And one could quite easily see a large gap between US/China and the rest, in terms of GDP, technology and military investment.

There are way more people calling China a superpower than India.

Putting it in a parallel tone doesn't seem a true balance.

Moreover, 80% of this line is essentially saying "we don't know what is a superpower 🤷", and only 20% is on the meat. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

At this point, it is clear anything other then "stylistically dry" will lead to months of heated debate. The reality is we don't know what "is" a superpower. I've seen a good case that based on the real world, rather then the world as we would like to perceive it, the only "Superpower" is NATO as a collective, with the U.S. and E.U. having relative economic/military parity within the block. There are more people discussing China then India, but that means there are also (likely) more people saying China isn't a superpower then there are mentioning India. Debating emphasis is going to be endless, for example, there was criticism on NPOV noticeboard that a suggested version over emphasized the United States, which is discussed quite widely in the contemporary literature and has the longest history of sources discussing it. As emphasizing the contemporary U.S. was to much, I figured we should just move all discussion of individual cases to the body of the article and keep the lede dry. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article remain readable, informative, fair, and accurate. The summary of the article should be in the lede. Sweeping controversy under the rug doesn't sound like the best way to do it.

The task we have is not to decide what is a superpower. We merely need to present the contenders with reasonable weights.

Despite all the mess and drama here, I think we can all agree the following:

• More often than not, the US has seen as a superpower since 1950s if not earlier. It is still so today.
• A non-negligble number of authors see China see it as a superpower, but only within the past 5 to 10 years.
• There are people seeing Russia or EU as superpower, but they are not as bountiful

My proposal is a good-faith summary of these findings - the US is an established superpower according to most, while China might also be one (and even so, a very recent one).

I convey the degree of believability by using the phrases "most observers" and "some scholars". Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• A non-negligible number of authors dispute that the U.S. is still a Superpower.
• A non-negligible number of authors dispute that China is a superpower.
• A non-negligible number of authors dispute that Russia is a superpower.
• A non-negligible number of authors argue that the E.U. is a superpower.
• Public opinion polls we have access to show a a non-negligible portion of the population holds differing opinions on each of these.

The only solution is a "stylistically dry" that avoids taking a stance in Wikivoice, and moves detailed discussion to the body. Other solutions require more text then is appropriate for the lede. I can't see an alternative that doesn't result in an infinite loop of mess and drama every time someone finds a new source that supports their views. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is an interesting take, but I beg to differ.

When we write something like "most observers hold that the United States remains a contemporary superpower", it already implies "a minority believes otherwise".

"China's expanding influence has led some scholars and publications to regard it as a rival superpower" implies "not everyone sees it the same way.

I expect a reasonable reader to make these inferences without a sweat.

To the contrary, if we put it in a flat list with a parallel structure, we provide a false balance - way more people believe the US is a superpower than Russia is. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:INTRO "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Per WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED"If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." The amount of text necessary to satisfy WP:Seriouslycontested would exceed the limits of MOS:Intro. We don't have numbers for "most observers." We have a splattering of sources, I haven't seen a systematic review published on this, much less a recent one. We can discuss all of this in the body of the article, but the lede would get bloated if we discussed each example in the literature. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not read the back and forth yet, but I am assuming it is progress. Please resume at the So is China a Superpower section. This is because I am trying to find a better method other than the back and forth in this section. Thank you for your attention. 16dvnk (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Good suggestions by the both of you. 16dvnk (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I like this proposal. 16dvnk (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a much more reasonable compromise than what we have currently. I'm in agreement with yourself and others that the current page is less a reflection of diverse opinions than a reflection of noone's opinion. The concept of due weight represents that pages can be constructed on an editorial level to reflect the relative weight given to distinct positions in the sources, and in this case we have already extensively surveyed what the positions given greater weight in the sources are. I hope that as editors we are collectively reasonable enough to follow through on identifying, negotiating and reflecting those weights in the writing of the page, rather than abdicating the responsibility to do so for the sake of ease. Gryfia (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Redwolf Milkshake Fox's proposal the most. Anything else, especially anything that basically amounts to "We don't know therefore the US, China, the EU, India, and Russia are considered superpowers" is just noise. PaulRKil (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It still feels surreal to list the US and Russia as superpowers in a single breath.

And we propose ancient Chinese dynasties (Song and Ming) as historical superpower, but we are not sure modern China is one or not. 🤦 Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said in another thread, we have spent almost a month gathering contemporary academic journals because we were told other sources were not sufficient for China to be considered a superpower, so why does the lede use a source from 2010 to say the EU is believed to be a superpower, uses The Atlantic and Foreign Policy Mag for China, and uses World Population Review for Russia? Why we only requiring hard academic sources for China while eschewing that requirement for every other country. PaulRKil (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The lede says "The most commonly cited entities as candidates for extant superpowers," it does not claim any of these are or are not superpowers. Each entity is debated in the literature, there isn't a hard consensus. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Now there is debate about whether the United States itself is a superpower and is considered a "potential" extant superpower next to...the United Kingdom and India? Is it not exceedingly obvious you have your own perspective that is now being forced on the page? Everyone else can agree a superpower is a thing, there are only definitionally, a few of them (at this point, reliably either two or one). You're now expanding the definition to include every other country you think has been at some point reference as a superpower, but when China is reliably and overwhelmingly referred to as one, it's not good enough for you. Dunnowy123 (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Early Superpowers - What purpose does this section actually serve, and why is it so large?

While we're on the topic of "academic and reliable sources," what is this section about "proposed early superpowers," other than people listing out historical empires and applying an anachronistic label to it? We can't agree on China being a superpower, but have no issue labelling the Habsburg Monarchy or the Aztec Empire a "proposed early superpower?"

The term superpower to refer to a state was deliberately introduced AFTER 1945 to describe the United States and the USSR, in a world that was clearly heading towards decolonization, and these countries were not formal empires. While it may make sense to casually refer to the British Empire, Spanish Empire or the Mongol Empire or even the Ottoman Empire, as "proto-superpowers", this is not particularly well established academically.

If I were a student, for example, wanting to learn about the concept of a "superpower" in international relations, what would I be learning from this article at this point, if every powerful political entity from the past is retroactively labelled a "superpower?" Dunnowy123 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"Many of the nations of this historical period were never superpowers, however they were regional powers with influence in their respective regions."

OMG who wrote this? It's like listing cabbage and spinach on a page about fruits, then proceed to saying they are not actually fruits. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably needs to go or be re-written. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• First, let's evaluate every source within the section before completely erasing the whole thing, shan't we? —George Ho (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'm not proposing complete removal, but it most certainly needs to be reigned in. A list of "proposed historical superpowers," given what the term superpower means, should be used sparingly and well supported by academic and historical consensus. Dunnowy123 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've cleaned it up a bit, and reorganized the sections to be a bit more logical by grouping sections focused on historical examples together. The Proposed Early Superpowers should be converted to prose, and examples should be limited. Fundamentally, few "Global" superpowers could have existed pre-Columbian exchange, as there were no powers that even knew about all other global powers, much less influenced them. The use exists in texts discussing historical civilizations, but it generally is hyperbole or very loose colloquial use. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at what is left, I think it is mostly OR. I'd have to go through each citation, and many are behind paywalls. I suspect many of the citations don't actually call these civilizations "superpowers," but detail characteristics the editor who wrote the content thought made them qualify. I think we can safely remove most examples and leave a small block of prose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a standalone list of proposed early superpowers. There's so little elaboration why each deserves to be considered to be one. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible "Chinese decline" section

I noticed that we have three sub-sections from the merge of "superpower collapse": U.S., Soviet Union, and British empire. Looking around Wikipedia, I found that Chinese_Century#Chinese_decline exists, and could possibly serve as the basis for a similar sub-section, assuming we keep the existing ones. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Resolved this by removing the superpower collapse section. Content trimmed and merged into other sections. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential extant superpowers section?

What exactly is that?

• Potential = could be but not yet
• Extant = it's there already

Do we really need to use this oxymoron term? Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Potential could be changed to possible, but was trying to differentiate between the current discourse and historic while not implying any of these are definitive superpowers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed 16dvnk (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage, China and the US are definitive Superpowers. PaulRKil (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED: "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry @GeogSage, but no. The idea that this is seriously contested is beyond ludicrous. The only person making that assertion is you. The overwhelming body of contemporary research places China and the United States as the sole contemporary superpowers. We've spent the better part of the month finding scholarly articles that conclude China is a superpower and you're editing the page using sources from 2010, news articles, and World Population Review to push this narrative. It is frankly unconstructive. PaulRKil (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

There are dissenting opinions on this matter in reliable sources. I'm currently working in my sandbox on this section. At this point, the back and forth for the better part of the month when there are clear paths forward to resolve this was and is unconstructive. For example, China: A great power but not a superpower is a 2023 article in The Hill (newspaper) that states, "So, China is unquestionably a great power. But a superpower? No way." It goes into a bit of detail on this. To be clear, even the United States is not an uncontested superpower, and when it comes to actual "Research" on this, opinions are divided. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The Hill is a newspaper, not a journal or a scholarly source. Again, proponents for saying China was a superpower early on in this discussion were told that the sources that was offered to make the statement were insufficient, so we spent time finding overwhelming journals from multiple international sources. Under what logical pretense does an article from a newspaper supersede the overwhelming scholarly consensus? PaulRKil (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources are sufficient, they don't have to be peer-reviewed to be used on Wikipedia. "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." Proponents for saying ____ wanted to use Wikivoice to endorse a specific opinion, that is not how Wikipedia works when there are multiple reliable sources. The entire "debate" in my opinion was misinformed, misguided, not in line with Wikipedia policy, and from what I can see, the result of two different Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing campaigns clashing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage You obviously do not want China to be classified as a superpower for political reasons. It's exceedingly obvious to everyone now. Dunnowy123 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

" Experts debate if Russia remains a superpower, and a Gallup survey of 39,760 people from 37 countries found that 41% percent believed Russia will be a superpower in 2030."

This is a reliable source, GeoSage? A minority of people predicting the most heavily sanctioned country on Earth will be a superpower in 4 years? Dunnowy123 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The source is probably reliable. But the way it is quoted here is just misleading. According to the poll, 61% believe the US will be a superpower by 2030, 24% don't. 63% believe so for China, and 22% believe the opposite. For US and China, there are ~2-3x more people agreeing they are superpower than those who don't.

For Russia, 41% people say they believe it will be a superpower by 2030, while 42% people say the opposite. So yes, slightly more people are against the proposition, but it's even split. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I re-read @GeogSage's last revision before the reverting. The poll was used twice - once in the lede, once in the extant section about Russia.

The cherry picking looks problematic to me. The revision doesn't reveal that technically more people disagreed that Russia is a superpower. Arguably, this is a textbook case of biased pov. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Work in progress, if you think the poll needs further clarification/elaboration, please feel free to add that content. There are other sources though, for example, Russia: Military Aspects of the Functioning of a Superpower, which I added after Russia's inclusion was challenged. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually quoted this same poll to @GeogSagebefore, and he/she responded by saying an opinion poll is not authoritative. I used it as an example of public perception being quite important to this debate, because a "superpower" is a political concept, not just an academic concept.

I find it extremely strange that this poll, which he/she claimed was NOT enough to be considered authoritative vis a vis China (even if the result shows a majority see China as attaining or already have attained superpower status), but seems perfectly fine for Russia, even if sub 50% of respondents agree with the claim. It's textbook biased POV, I agree @Redwolf Milkshake Fox. Dunnowy123 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage Your definition of reliable source seems to be anything that questions China is a superpower, but not the overwhelming political and academic consensus, from multiple sources around the world, that argue otherwise. Please address why this page now seems to be your editorial article. where apparently, the UNITED KINGDOM is a superpower in 2026? Dunnowy123 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dunnowy123 there is absolutely no circumstance where the UK would be considered a superpower right now. @Redwolf Milkshake Fox also pointed this out and I rolled back @GeogSage's edits to an earlier version because the article has lost any semblance of comprehension at this point and want to give them an opportunity to explain what exactly they're doing. Even if we may disagree on if China is a superpower or not, no reader was going to leave that version feeling informed about what a Superpower is and what it isn't. PaulRKil (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

UK is also an extant superpower?

Are we really calling UK a "possible extant superpower" along with US and China?

Our list is getting ridiculously long. UK receives the most attention in terms of word count under "possible extant superpower". And I don't even know where to start. There's so many reasons to argue it's a regional power at best, and putting it in this section feels frivolous. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Section is a work in progress. I collapsed the superpower collapse section into "extant superpowers." I found at least one source that states UK remains a "Potential economic superpower" and several mentions of it being a "soft power superpower," although I'm still checking out those to make sure they are reliable. I hope to make a sub-section for these mentions of superpowers in specific domains and move it there. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm genuinely wondering, why is that single source that refers to the UK as a potential economic superpower enough to give it the largest section in "extant superpowers," even larger than the US or China? What source could that possibly be? Dunnowy123 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That content all was moved from the section "superpower collapse," along with the content for Russia and USA. The section can be trimmed, it is a work in progress. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect @GeogSage your edits and reasoning lack any comprehension. PaulRKil (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Without any respect to you, I don't care about your opinion of my reasoning. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That is abundantly clear. As is your complete disregard of this talkpage page as you continue to make these edits. PaulRKil (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Guys, for fairness sake, let's allocate more time so that @GeogSage can finish his edits. Then, we can assess together if the article gives due weights to each point of view appropriately. Ideally, the end result should put more weight on the majority opinion, and less on the minority. Fringe opinions don't belong to the main article.

Should we put an under (re)construction / in progress template on the page? The article is not in a very good state now. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but every time this user has made an edit, it has resulted in a new talk page discussion either questioning the change or outright criticizing the state of the entire article. Also, he initially said he was going to propose a change to the lede, now it has turned into what we have now. PaulRKil (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is an absolute mess, and it is one I've been working on off and on for a few years. In its current state, it is a hodge podge of merges (several of which were preposed by me a while ago, but it still needs clean up), lists of poorly sourced assertions, poorly elaborated content, and just bad formatting. With a more balanced lede, I've been trying to fix the body of the article and source claims, but that takes time. The current lede "argument" is between groups of editors fixated on what stance to take on China in Wikivoice, and the answer to that is very clear, "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." The current lede does this, so of course it fails to satisfy people on both sides of this disaster who want to assert something as Fact in Wikivoice. We don't have a systematic review telling us what the "majority" of sources are claiming, and conducting such analysis would be original research. We do have multiple reliable sources for a wide range of claims. I proposed several iterations of lede, and adopted reasonable criticism to get the version that has been called "stylistically dry." For example, elaboration on the debate around the U.S. superpower status was criticized for being WP:UNDUE without similar discussion of China, and going into detail for each example case would make the lede too long, so I dropped the U.S. elaboration to the body. This back and forth discussion has just repeated the same arguments, framed in a way that does not meet Wikipedia policy for these situations, while locking down the article from any overhauls for over a month. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Your definition of a reliable source is extremely questionable, and you yet to answer for it. We have seen you make edits on the basis of old sources, polling, and off hand comments made in articles. Again, people have provided overwhelming sources asserting the point, which you have flat out ignored. There is a reason so many editors are fixated on this point. Your edits have made this page outdated from the current reality of the world we live in. If Wikipedia cannot have an article about superpowers of all topics that reflects which countries ARE superpowers TODAY, there is no point to the article.

@Geosage Dunnowy123 (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

A "superpower" is not like a planet or star, there is not a universal definition.

Scholars generally agree on which state is the foremost or unique superpower—for instance, the United Kingdom during the Victorian era and the United States during and immediately after World War II—but often disagree on the criteria that distinguish a superpower from other major powers and, accordingly, on which other states if any should be called superpowers.

— Britannica

Some say that unipolarity endures, that China will not become a “superpower” capable of overtaking the United States, or that Chinese power has peaked. By contrast, some see China as a peer competitor and the United States’ “pacing challenge.” Still others view the world as multipolar, pointing to Indian economic growth, Russian resurgence, and the emergence of other influential middle powers.

— Jennifer Lind

Definitions of superpower abound in international relations writings and while there is no formal mechanism for becoming a superpower, it is possible to extract a few typical elements of superpower-dom.

— Kammerhofer

The concept of a superpower has different definitions.

— Le Hai Binh

Even extensive statistics are not enough to define the rise to the status of a superpower.

— Le Hai Binh

The last two quotes are from the same paper. Two of these papers go on to assert the authors conclusion that China is a superpower, but that is based on the definition/perspectives the author adopts. This is the reality of the concept, pretending that there is a definitive list and criteria is not useful. Ignoring verifiable significant opinions on what qualifies as something that (verifiably) has no formal definition or criteria is absurd. In these situations, policy mandates we present the conclusions as opinions, not fact. We can elaborate on the stances and prominence of these positions in the body of the article, which is what I was doing until my work was reverted. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil, @GeogSage, I'm not going to admin-hat ask you to retract those comments, but if you could keep everything henceforth on the less-biting side of that, it would be much appreciated. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Current framing is a worst of all worlds compromise and flies in the face of common sense

Look, I get that you wikipedia editors have a hard time agreeing on things, but as happens often in disagreements, the compromise reached is the worst of all worlds. It really should go without saying that the best options are, in decreasing order of reasonableness, are 1. US and China are the two superpowers 2. US and China, but clarify that China reached this status very recently 3. US is the sole superpower, with China in second place and the leading contender among other countries.

The current version that demotes both the US and China to the level of the EU, Russia, India, and the UK (!?!?!) is ridiculous. Why not set the page to a more reasonable compromise while the debate continues? ~2026-38806-52 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It is clear the "debate" will never end, and reliable sources exist for all of these entities, both calling them superpowers and arguing against that. Whatever you think a reasonable compromise is, people with different POV will argue with you until the end of time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 10:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage Are you conceding this article is useless then? What is the point if it if we're reliably calling Russia a superpower in 2026, when all the articles derive from the 2000s and 2010s? I feel like you're missing the point. Some people seem to have a strange vested interest in not acknowledging on Wikipedia what is plainly obvious to see everywhere else. That's the long and short of it. Multiple governments, NGOs, and think tanks around the world are treating or classifying China as a superpower, but apparently that isn't good enough for Wikipedia. It's comical at this point. Dunnowy123 (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like you're missing the point, the article is not "useless" if it reflects sources. "Superpower" is not a formal classification, and while you're focused on China, I really should point out that I have made sure the United States also has ambiguous language around it to reflect that its status as a superpower is disputed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage, the only editor continuing the debate is you and the reasoning you provide is becoming harder and harder to understand and I think that is reflected in the edits you recently made. You're not listening to other editors in this page and then saying that the debate will never end when you are refusing to respond to any pushback to your proposals and then doing the edits anyway. PaulRKil (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am listening to the editors, I made compromises between all POVs that balance reliable source claims without presenting a conclusion in Wikivoice as none exist that are definitive in the literature. Trying to pick a POV is a waste of time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38806-52 I have gone ahead and done that. PaulRKil (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw GeogSage's version reverted back to a prior version. This isn't a level where another DRN request or another RFC discussion is needed, is it? (I promise to behave at DRN, BTW.) George Ho (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fact there are many editors in here who disagree with the changes is sufficient for the moment in my perspective. PaulRKil (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I originally added both the "undue" and "disputed" tags because I previously didn't consider a possibility that multiple sources would consider China a "superpower". Must I remove them both, just either one, replace either tag with another, or...? George Ho (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth the time and effort to dispute if UK belongs to the same tier as US and China. Any proponents would be laughed out of court. I suggest that we start again from the reverted draft. Redwolf Milkshake Fox (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the UK content to a new Sub-section for possible superpowers in specific domain, and trimmed the section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage I have to disagree here. Unless I am mistaken, I do not see UK being a candidate superpower as a viable option. This seems too fringe and extreme to include into the article. I do not find many sources that support UK at all, others just a short mention. This is a minority view, but it is not significant. 16dvnk (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair, again this section was part of another section we included as part of a merge from the page Superpower collapse. I have further edited down the UK section, mostly by moving some of the content to the history portion. I added an additional source and used it as an example for economic superpower. I believe we can include a few other examples of countries with a qualifier before the word "superpower," and balance the section by building up content at this point. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent reliable scholarly sources cited on the article page and this talk page clearly show a 2020s consensus China recently became a superpower in the 2010s-2020s, as do statements from the past two U.S. Secretaries of State from both major U.S. political parties. The sources espousing the present minority view China is not a superpower tend to be from the 2000s or 1990s, reflecting the scholarly consensus of those decades. The article should reflect current reliable scholarly consensus, not the opinions or wishers of editors. Wikipedia should reflect the world as it is presently, not how it was 20 years ago. --Plumber (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

In the 21st century, there is no definitive superpower. It is an idea, not a tangible state of being, and there are significant verifiable minority views for each. For example . There are sources for both sides of the debate, therefore we reflect this by treating it as an opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring scholarly journals that DO declare there are superpower nations (Example 1 Example 2) in favor of these two newsmagazines? I have asked you to answer this and you have refused to and provided an article that only satisfies absolutely none of what the goals were on this page and then ignoring concerns from myself and others. PaulRKil (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring individual examples of sources, I'm trying to balance conflicting ones. Those examples could be fantastic inclusions to the section on China for why it is a superpower. The examples do not discount the sources that say it is not though. If you want to add content on the what sources that say China is a superpower to the article in addition to the ones that say it is not, please do. However, to quote your 2nd example "Some say that unipolarity endures, that China will not become a “superpower” capable of overtaking the United States, or that Chinese power has peaked. By contrast, some see China as a peer competitor and the United States’ “pacing challenge.” Still others view the world as multipolar, pointing to Indian economic growth, Russian resurgence, and the emergence of other influential middle powers." The article goes on to take a stance on this issue, but it does not change that there are other views even acknowledged by this source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

"In the 21st century, there is no definitive superpower. It is an idea, not a tangible state of being, and there are significant verifiable minority views for each. For example . There are sources for both sides of the debate, therefore we reflect this by treating it as an opinion."

This is simply a false assertion. I don't know your background, but the existence or non-existence of a superpower is a REAL THING in international relations. Whether there is 1, 2 or 3 or no superpowers vastly changes the strategic decision making of REAL COUNTRIES, made by REAL people.

It's not just a fluffy academic debate, wherein the UK is suddenly seen a superpower because an article you found refers to them as a "potential economic superpower," (I'm not even going to attempt to figure out where that came from, but I'm going to assume that "source" derives from 2016).

You are consistently the only editor here who seems to hold this opinion, and are treating this page as an editorial to push your opinion, which is not substantiated by current literature or objective reality. Whether you believe in superpowers or not is irrelevant, frankly. Dunnowy123 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is spiraling out of control...

Hi everyone! Thank you for your attempts to resolve this dispute. However, it does not seem like that this back-and-forth with exponential amounts of new topics would be useful at this stage. The dispute has been reduced to some editor's "political bias" and the dispute of what a "reliable source" and the "interpretation" of NPOV.

You may resume back-and-forth above, but I would like to ask every editor how NPOV should be applied to the article and how the article should look like. Something similar to DRN Rule A would be preferable in this section. The back-and-forth is currently just repeating the same points and dodging questions from all sides. Currently, the back-and-forth is very long, and I do not see what the views of the editors are.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Paul said that the latest dispute is something that isn't the level of needing a DRN or an RFC discussion, didn't he? Well, NPOV is non-negotiable [and] cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines [or] editor consensus. In other words, even ways to implement dispute resolution still cannot override or supersede NPOV, and neither can WP:NOT policy. Even any article revision cannot supersede or ignore NPOV, despite WP:IAR, right?

Aside from that, I guess we have had trouble finding ways present China's "superpower" status neutrally. Indeed, deeming China as a "superpower" would still impact readers beyond our own imaginations, but we reluctantly have to reflect what reliable sources say about China. Would we make readers more Sinophobic just by calling China a "superpower"? Oh wait... China's actions would make readers more Sinophobic than this article would, right? George Ho (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: A bit frustrated, as I thought this was more or less done, only to find massive reverts taking the page back to square one, and an inbox full of pings. I speculate that a lot of the issue here is coming from editors with strong WP:OPINIONs based on competing real world nationalistic views. I believe many are struggling to have an WP:IMPARTIAL tone, to the point I believe it might be approaching WP:COIPOLITICAL in some cases. A source that was used as an example above summarize my POV of what the article should look like:

"Some say that unipolarity endures, that China will not become a “superpower” capable of overtaking the United States, or that Chinese power has peaked. By contrast, some see China as a peer competitor and the United States’ “pacing challenge.” Still others view the world as multipolar, pointing to Indian economic growth, Russian resurgence, and the emergence of other influential middle powers."

The Britannica article on Superpower does a pretty good job of demonstrating how I think the article should look as well, and I've tried to model much of the language and content after it. Specifically, the line,

Scholars generally agree on which state is the foremost or unique superpower—for instance, the United Kingdom during the Victorian era and the United States during and immediately after World War II—but often disagree on the criteria that distinguish a superpower from other major powers and, accordingly, on which other states if any should be called superpowers.

I believe Britannica handles discussion of the modern US and China power levels fairly well too. It should not be this hard, Wikipedia has really clear ways for handling conflicts in reliable sources, and we have reliable sources that tell us no clear consensus and answer exists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage, the fact that there is disagreement among sources does not mean that the article should be flattened in a way that makes it so every proposed candidate nation is placed into an undifferentiated list. Per NPOV we need to represented every viewpoint fairly and proportionately to their prominence in reliable sources and for something of this nature, we should be using contemporary scholarly sources, not equally weighing each with differing source quality.

Britannia’s article on Superpower identifies three broad interpretations of polarity: American unipolarity, United States-China bipolar competition, and multipolarity involving additional powers. It also does NOT say that India, Russia, the European Union, China, and the United States are all supported as “extant superpowers.” The article also ends by speculating that China’s transformation into an economic powerhouse has produced global completion with the United States (bipolarity).

Furthermore, looking at the edit history that Britannica offers, the text of the article you are citing has not been updated since 2020 at the least. Therefore, it is not up to date with contemporary developments in international relations. Wikipedias strength is that it can be quickly updated as developments occur.

I have issues as well with your sourcing in the lede. World Population Review is an aggregator and should never be used to assert a position such as one that a country may or may not be a superpower when contemporary scholarly journals, written by experts in the field, are available and that goes the same for newsmagazines and outdated sources such as the one from 2010 used for the EU. These sources are not interchangeable simply because they contain the word “superpower.”

Unless there is evidence of that myself or other editors have an external relationship with a political party, politician, or a government then alleging WP:COIPOLITICAL against us is not a policy based response to objections about the quality of your edits, but a bad faith allegation that you should retract. PaulRKil (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Fact check:

We should list and show viewpoints according to their weight. Less significant minor viewpoints should be weighted less than more significant minor viewpoints. Likewise, If there are less sources listing X as a superpower, while more sources lists Y as a superpower, Y should clearly be weighted above X. The matter of how to do so is up to interpretation. 16dvnk (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I also want to further point out my issues with using the Britannica entry. The text of the article remains unchanged since at least 2015 using the internet archive. That means at least 11 years of the article not being revisited by that sites staff. Again, many assertions being used to substantiate the article in its current form use unacceptably aged sources. PaulRKil (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The source you accused me of ignoring stated that there are multiple positions when discussing China, you didn't respond to that. On the COIPOLITICAl, I can't be sure because Wikipedia is anonymous, but the 50 Cent Party, Little Pinks, and other countries equivalents are something to be aware of on this topic. That concern is mostly because the vibe doesn't feel organic to me, I have no evidence, but being accused of "ignoring sources" that don't favor one side, when I am actively trying not to ignore any sources, and seeing concerns of "Sinophobia" certainly brought that to mind. It feels extremely aggressive/hostile on a topic that most people are bored to tears about in my experience. I'm speaking from a place of frustration, as hours of reasonable edits and verifiable content are being wholesale reverted in what certainly feels like Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. From my perspective, we have WP:STONEWALL, WP:GASLIGHT, "Starting a new diverting discussion when existing discussion is favoring change", "Suggest a third option without actually proposing one", and approaching "Edit war lockdown". It really feels like a Wikipedia:Bring me a rock situation, especially after reading your criticism of the Britannica article, which states it was updated "July 1, 2026" right at the top of the page, and the edit history shows it is not stagnant, and was "revised and updated" in 2020. People are actively updating the article, and if text remains unchanged that is after being "revisited by that sites staff." At this point, we will never be able to edit the article again until one "side" gets to say what is or is not a current superpower in Wikivoice, and no one will ever agree on that (nor should they, as reliable sources exist on both sides, and policy is clear on what we do in such a situation).

I believe what I've proposed, and the edits I've made, are perfectly reasonable unless you have a bias one way or the other. You have to discount some of the reliable sources to come to any other conclusion. If you don't like sources I've used, go ahead and look for ones you approve of that say essentially the same thing and replace them. I'm trying to work on getting better sources as I go, but that is hard when the work is wholesale reverted to a very flawed status quo. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you, I am not a member of the Chinese online army. The problem @GeogSageis that you've made this article considerably worse. Because of your own opinion that there is "no definitive superpower", a strange opinion to take whilst editing the Superpower page on Wikipedia, but I digress, the section referring to our contemporary world is extremely outdated and also very small. We have a larger section speculating which random historical empire "may or may not be considered a proto-superpower" in this article than the 21st century. That is simply egregious for the topic, which is not "boring", another strange assertion, I might add.

What editors have also noticed is how quick you are to label other countries "extant superpowers", whilst putting up maximal scrutiny towards the only country aside from the United States that is *reliably* described as a superpower (hence, the UK incident yesterday). I just searched today and found 5 articles/sources describing China as a superpower:

• Irish Times: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/china-world-energy-superpower-802gpfnh9 (by your own previous definition, "energy superpower" counts (Irish newspaper)
• IRIS: https://www.iris-france.org/en/china-an-emerging-agricultural-superpower (French think tank)
• Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-alleges-china-committed-2020-election-fraud-2026-07-17/ (American publication)
• Foundation for Defense of Democracies: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/27/the-u-s-china-superpower-stalemate/ (American publication - and contextually, a very pro-American one)
• Lowy Institute: https://power.lowyinstitute.org (this Australian think tank, one of the most reputable in the world, has reliably listed China as a superpower since 2022, I acknowledge the terminology is "Asia centric", but note the only other superpower is the United States, not another Asian country)

The debate has been mostly settled in the real world. It's not whether or not China is or is not a superpower, it's to what extent it is less or more powerful than the United States. I for one believe Wikipedia should be a reputable source for current events, and that's why this page matters to me.

Not because I'm a member of the Chinese Communist Party, thank you very much. Dunnowy123 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dunnowy123, please see the recent RFC, above, which found no consensus for describing China as a superpower. You may disagree with this, and that's perfectly fine - but statements like It's not whether or not China is or is not a superpower, it's to what extent it is less or more powerful than the United States. clearly do not have consensus. While I'm here, @GeogSage, please don't accuse other editors of being PRC plants.

Rather than reverting back and forth, could I suggest that interested editors take this one paragraph or one section at a time? There are a lot of broad arguments here, and that's obviously not getting anywhere productive. If you could work more closely on the level of individual paragraphs, that might get somewhere. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, been months of this and last few reverts undid a lot of work. Feels like sources and policy don't matter, I'm frustrated with what feels like competing nationalist arguments, but you're right I need to avoid accusations without proof. Thanks for calling me out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Just listed sources in one of the articles above, but there is "no definitive superpower," as there is no definitive definition of a superpower, no objective criteria for what makes one, and differing opinions in reliable sources on them. I don't doubt you can find sources saying China IS a superpower, that is easy. It is also easy to find articles that take the other side, for example:China: A great power but not a superpower states "So, China is unquestionably a great power. But a superpower? No way." Two think tanks also discuss this perspective when looking at the book China After Mao (book),Bookshelf: China may not be a superpower (Australian Strategic Policy Institute, think tank), and Empire of Illusion: Frank Dikötter on Why China Isn’t a Superpower (Hoover Institution, think tank). The opinion that China is a superpower exists in verifiable sources, as does the opinion that it is not. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There are only 2 candidates for superpower: US and China. All another countries are a joke in comparison and shouldn't even be mentioned at this point. I can also find credible sources that say the US is not a superpower. https://www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/max-policy/us-no-longer-superpower. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/heres-why-us-no-longer-worlds-only-superpower. https://www.salon.com/2026/06/21/america-abdicates-as-global-superpower-and-its-about-time/. These need to be mention in the intro alongside with China bears. ~2026-42408-01 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

IP, the lead of an article needs to follow what is said in the body of the article. So arguing over what should or should not be said in the lead is not productive - what needs to happen is that editors agree on what ought to go in the body of the article first. It's obvious that many sources say that particular countries are or are not superpowers, so individual sources of that type are not going to be useful for determining the question. What is needed is high-quality overview sources that discuss opinions like the ones in those links. Trying to write the article based on sources like the ones you've brought up in this comment would be like trying to write a medical article based on individual studies. Any top-level sources you can find would be very helpful, however. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed I agree the lead should be balanced, which is why I think listing every single weakness of China - without mentioning specific US problems - in the intro is undue weight. I think it is appropriate if there is more thorough discussion on any issues in the body for both countries. ~2026-42408-01 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The version I was working on attempted to do this. I attempted to use World Population Review and a Gallup survey to establish some sort of overview (not the best sources, but they are what I've been able to find at the moment until a systematic review is written). Then I supplemented these with sources specifying each example, and was working on elaborating in the body. Feedback was initially focused on UK, which has a brief mention, and we had content from a page merge I was working into the article. I tried to cut down that content to satisfy that criticism, and was working on either finding more sources or removing more content. I attempted to take feedback from both "sides," and made corrections to initial drafts of the lede based on discussion. That was then reverted wholesale. At this point, the article is stonewalled. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's connect well with mobile (or smartphone) users please, so I'm outdenting this in case we wanna continue by simplying using the "Reply" tool. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage, my advice would be the same as to everyone else in this discussion, namely, to ignore the lead for now until the body is better worked out. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The revert removed tremendous amount of work I had done on the body. Most of the changes were likely to be fairly uncontroversial, such as removing unsourced content, organizing content from previous page merges, and most importantly, adding sources. New sourced content was added to elaborate on examples of extant superpowers mentioned in reliable sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage I’d like for you to explain why you are removing commonly asserted conclusions about who is a superpower despite the fact the discussion in this talkpage seems to both come to a conclusion regarding china and the US as superpowers, ignoring scholarly citations in favor of newsmagazines.

You also accused me of adding a disputed citation in spite of the fact you’re both the one who originally cited the source and then went to the noticeboard. I’ll own up to doing a third revert but I changed it back once I realized my mistake, but I think it is below either of us to try and pin that on another user who is also editing at the same time as you.

I did not make edits that were in conflict with the body or the lede, I made changes that strengthened both of them and is supported by the ongoing discussions here and by scholarly and academic journals. While there is an RFC that concluded as "No Consensus", further discussion has solidified around who the contemporary superpowers are with myself and other users bringing forward scholarly articles that were used to make the changes I made and were properly cited in my changes.

What is not supported by anyone in this talk page except you is the idea that there are no superpowers. The evidence and discussions going on here give you no grounds to make this broad sweeping assertion that nobody knows what are superpowers. PaulRKil (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained this at length, but, WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia:Core content policies and "non-negotiable". Per NPOV, we are obligated to Avoid stating opinions as facts, and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Verifiably, from multiple sources, there is no actual universally accepted definition or established criteria for what makes a superpower, especially in the 21st century. Verifiably, there is dispute on all possible examples of existing superpowers today. Therefore, we can not state that there is a consensus when none exists. While we could "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views," we do not have a reliable systematic review that does this. We can not say anything is a superpower with the sources that we have available to us without ignoring reliable sources. This means, verifiably, all claims that anything is or is not a superpower is the opinion of the person writing the source.

In my personal/professional opinion, yes, the U.S. and China are probably the most likely to be considered superpowers, but my opinion isn't a source. There are sources that contest both of these states superpower status. My professional opinion is that the concept of "superpowers" is useful in history classes and in introducing students to global power dynamics, but that it is otherwise useless. I believe the US is losing a relative advantage as other states rise in power, and that we are returning to an era of competing great powers with no "Superpowers" likely to exist in the later half of the 21st century, but again, I'm not writing a original research, I'm summarizing sources. NPOV is not negotiable, this is a contentious topic, and it is really important we hold to the Wikipedia:Five pillars. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You are overstating every rule in order to justify this particular version of the article. Wikipedia does not require us to dismiss scholarly conclusions as opinion. It requires us to give weight to each assertion. Dismissing every scholarly claim about superpower status as opinion misses how we are supposed to weigh experts. In my edits I asserted that contemporary sources regard China and the US as superpowers while also keeping viewpoints that oppose that view. That is applying weight to the dominant view and follows the rules, and inappropriate to convert back. PaulRKil (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Outdenting again, especially for mobile use. That said, how many more back-and-forth replies can both of you make before you deem another DRN intervention necessary? —George Ho (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho I'm responding to being pinged and answering questions directed at me.

@PaulRKil I'm quoting Wikipedia policy and trying to write content that follows that policy. This policy is not negotiable. "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage The lede of my edit says Today, scholarly discourse and public perception regarding superpower status vary widely. Contemporary journalists, academics, and economists cite that the United States and China as the world's current superpowers. I made that change to the lede while citing journals that support this position. The edits I made in the body also use the same academic sources. Perhaps it could say that they commonly cite the two nations as superpowers, but this statement is merely putting forward what the majority of the reliable sources say in academic circles have concluded. What you are doing is acting like I said "China and the US are superpowers." without giving verifiable attributions which simply is not the case. Presenting the overwhelming academic consensus is not the same as using a single newsmagazine's opinion article as a source to state a fact. That is an example of where what you are saying would apply, not my edits. Again, you are broadly applying the rules in a way that is inconsistent with how they are typically applied. PaulRKil (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)