Talk:Superpower

What else to do next?

If another RFC isn't the answer, then what else? Opening another request at WP:DRN would result in another failure, especially if I intended to brainstorm an RFC.... or something else that Robert McClenon says. WP:NPOVN didn't attract much AFAIK. China-related topics are becoming hotter than before. We're running out of options here. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

We need to break down the discussion into smaller parts, and work on them piece by piece.

And perhaps we should not fixate on what China is today. The article has more problem than that. In another thread, a newcomer commented on the sources about India. The historical section, being the second section of the article, conflates historical empires as comparables to modern nation states. You can't exert global influence when the only means of international communication is a horse. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 18:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, moving aside from the "China as superpower" discussion. The entire historical section is so strange. While it's certainly fun to discuss which historical entities are "superpowers" or not, this article puts undue weight on it. Why is right at the top, before the COLD WAR, where the term "superpower" actually entered public and academic usage? The term "superpower" more or less came about to describe the Cold War, so that section needs to be much more important.

If anything it should be at the bottom of the article, noting that historians have attempted to describe the international influence of certain empires in the "known world" at the time.

I also think the section "contemporary geopolitical development" frankly makes no sense and sounds very awkward (it should be contemporary geopolitical developments too, to boot, not singular if we insist on using this term). Why not "Current Superpowers?" (Once we eventually agree on this point). Potential superpowers after that (if we must have this section). Dunnowy123 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It used to be "potential superpowers", and I changed it to "modern examples", someone changed it to "possible modern examples", then I change it to "contemporary geopolitical developments" and we appear to have reached a local minimum and settled there. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 19:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Strategic ambiguity wins. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 19:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that another RFC isn't the answer, or that another RFC is the answer. I said that brainstorming an RFC isn't the way DRN works, and that we weren't going to brainstorm an RFC at DRN. I don't know whether another RFC is the answer. I don't think that brainstorming is the way to develop an RFC, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that we work on the bits for pre-21st century materials first. That should be rather uncontroversial. We can build rapport and momentum and then move to tackle the difficult bit. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 20:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

We have tried multiple venues like DRN, RFC, talk page threads, village pumps, and NPOV/N. It appears that nothing would provide a conclusive response. The dispute has evolved from whether China is a superpower to a question of how the term superpower should even be defined. Further discussion will provide No consensus and will only repeat the same points over and over and over again. This dispute is no longer containable with further back and forth discussion on the talk page.

As such, I will be stepping away from this dispute. I wish the article well. Thank you.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho How would you like to start brainstorming? Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 01:59, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho I expected you to organize a brainstorming session. While I understand life happens and you may not have time for it, raising tangential, procedural, and formatting criticisms repeatedly within threads focused on article content is not too constructive. If you'd still like to set up a brainstorming thread, please feel free to do so.

Otherwise, I'd welcome feedback on the current DiME proposal in the active RfC thread. Thanks. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 22:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for being less constructive than I thought. I'll await the ongoing process of that active RfC thread then. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why this is hard:

• We have reliable sources for multiple POV.
• We have policy that clearly demonstrates how we should handle multiple POV in reliable sources.

Seems pretty clear to me. Everything on this talk page slowing us down is an attempt to subvert this, ignore some sources, narrow the scope, and push a specific conclusion. The main issue is there are multiple people trying to do this with different conclusions in mind. RfC fails, dispute resolution fails, because you can't resolve a dispute that already has a clear answer in policy that some people want to ignore. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:55, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Consensus Formation - Global Power Index inclusion

@GeogSage and I have an disagreement on including data from this study, an composite index to measure comprehensive national power strength of 188 countries from year 1960 to 2023, with projected values up until 2050, and retrospectively constructed values from 1816 to 1960.

I included it because it is a proxy of countries' aggregate strength in miliary, economic, demographic, technological, and diplomatic axes.

Meanwhile, @GeogSage deleted the source and left this in the edit comment:

Removing Global power index. I looked at the original report, and it is not discussing this index in terms of "Superpowers." It does use the term superpower twice (not around this index), but uses the term "Great power" 26 times to describe contemporary politics. Other sources that use this index also use "Great power."

I disagree with his rationale for excluding the source:

• The source is peer-reviewed and comes from a reputable research organization.
• The primary purpose of this index is to quantify national strengths, and not to box countries into discrete buckets labeled 'middle power', 'great power', or 'superpower'. Counting keyword hits misses the point.
• Applying the same logic, we would need to remove the other chart on military spending, because that source does not contain the term "superpower" either.

I propose that we revert the removal, reinstating the time series chart of the index. I'd welcome opinions of the community.

Diff history:

• The removal.
• The graph in question

Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 00:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• The source being peer reviewed means nothing if it isn't actually about the topic in question.
• Linking a box showing national power that is not explicitly used for that purpose in the cited sources is WP:Synthesis. Again, you are working under the assumption that some countries ARE superpowers, and then using that to justify including stuff related to these countries. That works in a research paper, not Wikipedia.
• If needed, I can provide multiple sources that discuss military spending as a metric when directly discussing superpowers. When trying to do the same for the Index, I found several sources discussing great powers, but not explicitly mentioning superpowers. For example, Measuring the rise and fall of countries: the Comprehensive National Power Index, which uses this index, mentions "Great power" 6 times (4 of these are in a footnote), but never uses "superpower" as a term. I've found several sources which use the index to discuss a power in a specific context, such as Science & Technology superpower, but including discussion of that has been heavily contested. (BTW, Please restore that content you removed without any justification based in policy or sources, I don't believe your compromise actually resolved the issue, and see no reason your opinion warrants a compromise on this.)
• Please stop opening new discussion topics for every little thing. It makes it very hard to keep up with what is being said when we have 20 open discussion in less then a year.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

An editor has attempted to apply WP:Synthesis to the content to justify its removal, yet the application is erroneous.

Synthesis policy states: "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources."

In this case, I introduced a standalone box containing time series directly sourced from a single peer-reviewed study. I did not make any calculations. Nor did I add any commentary/analysis to it. I did not combine the data with other sourced content. Everything I include is extracted from the source verbatim.

On the contrary, the objection itself relies on synthesis-based arguments: data X is introduced to this article, and he found a separate paper Q that also uses data X but paper Q uses the term "great power" more than it uses the term "superpower". Therefore data X is only about "great power" and not "superpower". Whether the deduction is logically sound or not, this is synthesis.

I reiterate that the data introduced is a peer-reviewed composite index of national power, and it is highly relevant to this article. I look forward to hearing from the community about their thoughts. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• The stand alone box comes from Source A, which does not discuss the index in the context of superpowers. It discusses great powers extensively.
• The example I pointed to was an attempt to find a source that does explicitly link it.
• The Synthesis is: several sources refer to several entities as superpowers. The index refers to several states, but not in the context of superpowers. Including it in this context when the initial source of the index does not, without another source making the link, is synthesis.
• The quality of a source is not an argument.
• "Community thoughts" do not, in of themselves, matter if no source explicitly linking this specific index to the topic exists.
• Rather then trying to call on a mob to argue in circles, find a source explicitly linking the index to superpowers in the general sense. It should be easy. If it isn't easy, then no amount of discussion will bridge the gap.
• Comment: Whenever I see an index used, it immediately raises red flags. I have personally been "Reviewer 2" and recommended articles be rejected for misusing them when doing peer-review (not proud of this, but it had to be done). There are large numbers of indexes for various topics, it was/is a bit of a trend among academics to make an index and try to get it to become an accepted default to raise h-index scores. Because of this, there are often multiple indexes that could be used for any one problem, and the difference between them can be subtle. They also often have built in limitations, frameworks, or assumptions that need to be considered. It is important to make sure a specific index is both appropriate to the context, and the most useful one available. In this instance, there is the proposed Pardee’s National Power Indices, but also the Global Power Index (GPI) 3.0 and GPI 4.0, Global Militarisation Index, Asia Power Index (Which focuses on Asia, but DOES mention superpowers and include the United States on their website), the World Power Index (WPI), etc. If we are going to include a statistical index, it should be explicitly linked to the topic, and we should justify why we use one over the other options.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:38, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I thank the editor for his elaboration. Here's my response.

• WP:SYNTH explicitly defines synthesis as combining more than 1 source. I call upon him to explain, in his opinion, which 2 sources are being combined to form what new conclusion. Note that the proposed change presents data series only from one single study.
• Describing consensus forming as "a mob arguing in circles" runs against the basic philosophy of wikipedia.
• There could be other specialized indices that could help readers understand contemporary developments. However, that doesn't discount the fact that the proposed index is a credible measure of general national strength. Under WP:PRESERVE, editors are encouraged to add to the content and not remove it.

Despite our attempts to resolve the differences, there is a fundamental disagreement on whether presenting a single academic index constitutes WP:SYNTH, I have filed a request at WP:3O (Third Opinion) so a neutral party can assist us in reaching consensus. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 08:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Here from WP:3O. Here are my takes:

1. If the GPI graph is to remain, it should be below the opinion poll on superpowers.
2. If the GPI graph is to remain, the accompanying text should contain a short explanation of what the GPI is and who made it. It could be useful as a visualization of the power of the states in question, but this explanation should clarify that it is indeed just a visualization of the power of these states by the creators of this index, and has no input on whether any of them are a superpower or not.
3. The entire second paragraph of Superpower#Contemporary developments should be removed. It does not discuss the subject matter of superpowers, and covers subjects which would be better discussed within the sub-headings below it (again, if it had anything to say about superpower status; this is not an article about "who's stronger and why").
4. The "countries by military expenditure" graph was placed weirdly in the middle of a paragraph. I moved some of the current graphs around for cosmetic effect, and to be near relevant paragraphs.

Let me know what you guys think. I hope you can accept this compromise and put this issue to rest.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Here my response to your observations:

1. Reordering the charts sounds fair
2. I propose something along the lines of "Global Power Index (1990-2023), an aggregate index of national economic, technological, and military strengths, compiled by X University. It quantifies national strengths, but there's no binary threshold for "superpower" status.
3. We'll look into that paragraph as a separate issue.
4. Thank you for fixing the formatting.

If you have further comments, please let us know. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 21:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

2. Sounds good.

3. I think that's a good idea.

4. No problem :)

Let's wait and see what Geog thinks.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the current state of the article? It says now "Global Power Index from 1960 to 2023, compiled by Pardee Institute, University of Denver, quantifying relative economic, technological, and military strengths of 188 countries regardless of superpower status."

If you have better ways to phrase it, please let me know. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 17:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Redwolf.

First, I want to say that I would like to hear from @GeogSage about this. I am here primarily as a third opinion, after all, and not a second one.

In my (third) opinion, I would perhaps replace "regardless of superpower status" with "(making no determination on superpower status)". I think that would more clearly and accurately take care of the issues previously discussed here.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

• The issue I have with this index is pretty straightforward. An Index (statistics) is a composite statistic, where multiple aggregated variables are combined into one value for comparison. These have pros and cons. The main issue is that Indexes need to be used very carefully to ensure they align with the underlying assumptions/use that the original author intended. Indexes fundamentally have baked in biases from the person creating the index that are hidden unless you actually look at the methods used to create them. The choice of what variables to include/exclude, and how to weigh them, ultimately impacts the final score. An example I use when teaching about them would be creating a theoretical "Civil Rights Index," used to compare countries. Specifically, after brainstorming variables, I ask if freedom to own personal firearms, freedom to film everything you see in public (including police officers), and freedom to hike on private property should be included, and how the index might be skewed if they were included/excluded. Then I ask how it could be impacted if we included services, like health care, food, and clean water, or items like safety from crime.
• There are multiple indexes that are similar to this one. I don't see why we would choose this one over others unless there is a specific source.
• I had previously looked at trying to include an index on the page, but did not find one that I thought was suitable to the topic.
• After reviewing the sources, I did not find this specific index linked to discussion of superpowers in original literature, or in subsequent publications. That is not to say it does not exist.
• Getting a random index and combining it with information about superpowers to demonstrate world standing in this context without that argument being made within the supporting literature is synthesis of multiple sources to say something not said in any one of them. As has been stated previously in this talk page, because of how controversial this page has become, I've tried to ensure every word choice and inclusion is defensible. I don't believe this index is.
• An opinion poll of Wikipedia editors is not a substitute for a source. No amount of discussion can make a link that does not exist in outside literature. This talk page has become a mess of people arguing past each other about what they think, rather then what sources (plural) are actually saying. Decisions are being made that over ride reliable sources with editor opinions. I challenged that the material is not explicitly linked to the topic, as others have challenged me, and asked for citations because I'm unable to find the connection. Consensus in the absence of reliable sources is meaningless.
• If an index is going to be included, we should have a good reason for including one index over other options. This is harder to do, and might not need an explicit citation in the article, but should be defensible on the talk page at least.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the other editor sharing his take on statistical indexing and teaching experience. However, I'd like to focus on enriching the article and address the status of the dataset:

Pardee's GPI is a peer-reviewed dataset that tracks overall national power capability and is relied upon by many organizations in many contexts. For example, this study on European military strategy, this paper on German positioning, and this study on Africa's power as a bloc, and this US gov report.

Like GDP figures compiled by the IMF, a source dataset on state capacity need not use the exact word "superpower" to provide verified, attributed context on superpower status. Context matters more than keyword hit counts.

Like any index, no index is perfect. Even GDP has its flaws. But this doesn't mean it is not useful. Neither does it mean an editor's assessment that an index 'could possibly have baked-in bias' justifies jettisoning the whole verifiable dataset. If other reliable indices exist, the other editor is encouraged to add them alongside this one to offer more diverse perspectives. The editor is welcome to open a talk page thread for comparing different indices. If the other editor believes this index has disqualifying "baked-in bias" that renders it unusable, he is invited to present another one free of such bias and explain how so.

On the point about synthesis, I continue to call upon him to specifically which two sources are used to support what conclusion in the proposed chart and caption: Global Power Index from 1960 to 2023, compiled by Pardee Institute, University of Denver, quantifying relative economic, technological, and military strengths of 188 countries. It makes no determination on superpower status.

In my opinion, the 3O volunteer provided a balanced approach, and I support implementing the change they proposed. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 23:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• The index is from a source.
• The sources describing what is or is not a superpower are what we use in the article.
• Without an explicit link between these sources and this index, the index is at best irrelevant to the topic. If we try to rely on it to demonstrate power rankings in this context, and that is fundamentally what is being done, it is synthesis. Wikipedia should not be the first to use this index to illustrate superpowers.
• There are other indexes. Why would we choose this one over others?
• You linked four sources. Of these, three don't use the term "superpower" at all, and the fourth doesn't use it in relation to this index. I can link peer-reviewed indexes that are referenced in peer-reviewed sources as well, it doesn't mean they should be included.
• Find sources that explicitly discuss this index in the context of superpowers. That is what we'd need. Ideally, multiple, because the next question is why use this index and not others that sources have used explicitly to discuss superpowers. It should be easy if it is worth including.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Would the other editor be satisfied if we use another index Diplomacy, Military, Economy (DiME) from the same author, who wrote in this paper: While some argue that China is not on track to surpass the US as the leading superpower, others have highlighted that this expectation relies on forecasts utilizing existing measurements with major limitations. Particularly, they argue that measurements of power may be missing aspects of competition where the US may possess strategic advantages vis-a-vis China, such as the fields of technology, alliance networks, and advantages from the very structure of the international system..., and then proceeded to propose his measure? Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 02:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That Index is better in terms of relevance, however look at the paper itself:

• It mentions superpower 4 times before introducing the DiME index as part of the discussion about background/past work
• It doesn't mention how the DiME index relates to superpower status.

Comment: Looking at that index, it is a good example of the problems associated with choosing variables. The index is broken into five parts, and one is the "Count of nuclear weapons." Literature on this is a bit sparce, but I'm aware that one school of thought is that past a certain point, just having a few nuclear weapons is pretty much as useful as having an arsenal of several thousand from a purely deterrence point of view. Seems a bit too much weight on that, especially as nuclear weapons count is a separate part from military spending. Most countries have zero nuclear weapons, so this would bias the index in favor of that small group. For our purposes, not saying it is wrong, but it is something I could see someone writing a critical response to. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• It doesn't mention how the DiME index relates to superpower status. That is not a yes. Specifically, it talks about how others have measured status/power, and criteria others have used to define superpower. It does not attempt to use the DiME in this capacity. Is there a source explicitly linking the DiME to describe superpowers? There are different models for how we discuss geopolitical power, and it doesn't necessarily look like the author is combining their index with the use of Super, great, middle, and lesser powers.
• It looks like the article is cited 22 times. If this metric is being used to quantify "superpower," it should be pretty easy to find.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 10:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Redwolf Milkshake Fox, again, this really looks like you're trying to force through some original research. Please stick to what sources are saying about superpowers. If lots of these reliable sources were to use the DIME index in their discussions of the topic, it might be relevant to show it here. But from the discussion thus far, that doesn't sound like it's the case. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the assessment that this is original research.

The connection is made explicit in the original paper by the authors, not by me. Quite the contrary, the authors create the index for the purpose of evaluating if China will become a leading superpower.

The author states

While some argue that China is not on track to surpass the US as the leading superpower, others have highlighted that this expectation relies on forecasts utilizing existing measurements with major limitations. Particularly, they argue that measurements of power may be missing aspects of competition where the US may possess strategic advantages vis-a-vis China, such as the fields of technology, alliance networks, and advantages from the very structure of the international system.

And then, the authors proceed to propose their DiME index to tackle the multi-dimensional measurement problem, formulate forecasting methodology, and perform scenario analysis.

Finally, the authors conclude

This analysis shows that a coming transition between China and the US in relative material capabilities is extremely likely over the next four decades, occurring in 89.7% of scenarios analyzed. The only scenarios explored in which this transition does not occur rely upon forecasting multiple-decade reductions in Chinese economic growth that averages just over three percent from now through 2040 and remains lower than two percent per year through 2060.

As the peer-reviewed paper applies verbatim the DiME index to analyze if China is on track to surpass the US as the leading superpower, including this dataset with proper attribution helps enrich the article without introducing any newly synthesized talking points.

There could be alternative indices. It is my view that such possibility does not preclude inclusion of the DiME index. I would support including other measures if they help substantiate the article.

I continue to support including the DiME index. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 18:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

They mention superpower in terms of how others have spoken about power. The introduction and "Quantifying Relative National Capabilities" are looking at background in how others have approached the problem of discussing and comparing countries geopolitical status. When discussing the DiME, they do not mention how it relates to the term superpower. One is a qualitative, categorical, subjective term and the other is a quantitative index value. Another example of something like this might be looking at "High, Medium, Low" risk values for disease compared to a Relative Risk score derived from something like SaTScan.

The problem indexes like this are addressing is the fuzzy, qualitative, subjective definitions that are thrown around in political science. The authors state state:

These disagreements highlight the breadth of challenges in research seeking to measure and forecast national power.

and

Recognizing these challenges, this article seeks to accomplish three things. First, it aims to improve scholars’ ability to measure the general material capabilities of states over time by introducing the DiME Index.

Second, this article forecasts this measure using the International Futures model.

Third, because this article is describing long-term futures characterized by uncertainty, it introduces 29 alternative scenarios.

An index score does not tell us what is or is not a superpower unless the authors make that relationship clear. The use of an index seems to be an attempt to replace the relative and subjective use of "superpower" by offering a score instead or qualitative categories. The author does not explicitly say they are trying to replace the term though, but it does seem like they want to offer an alternative to solve the exact problem this talk page has with definitions. I don't necessarily agree with the methodology behind this index (as stated, I think they give to much weight to nuclear weapons), but it would likely be better suited to it's own Wikipedia article then thrown into this one. Creating an index might be something worth doing if any researchers are following this looking for gaps in the literature. Hell, I might see if any students I know want to help whip one up. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone who wants to, the DiME index paper has roughly 22 citations. It could probably pass verification for a stand alone Wikipedia article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you have pointed out something very important. The purpose of the index is to address "fuzzy, qualitative, subjective definitions" when discussing national power concepts like superpowers. Their effort is bridging qualitative concepts and quantitative methods, and their peer-reviewed index provide grounded source for us to enrich the article. The point of the index is not even slapping a label on different countries; instead, the main theme of the paper is to extrapolate the data and lay down the trajectories. This is arguable more useful than 1) stating in wikivoice which are superpowers, and 2) stating some people think X is superpower while other people don't agree (and repeat this for each countries). Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 20:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Source bundled together

We currently have a single ref bundling 6 different sources together. (diff: ) I am wondering this bundling is proper and if we should attribute the talking points to individual sources.

Any thoughts from other editors on unbundling this?

What the article looks like now

...and the dominance of the U.S. dollar in global trade.^[13] At the same time,...

And in the reference section:

12. Schuman, Michael (5 October 2020). "What Happens When China Leads the World". The Atlantic. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
13.

• Demczuk, Andrzej (18 November 2025). "Illusion of Multipolarity: Why the U.S. Remains the Global Superpower". Historia i Polityka (54 (61)): 35–53. doi:10.12775/HiP.2025.029 – via apcz.umk.pl.
• Herman, Arthur (14 January 2026). "America Is the Sole Superpower Again". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 February 2026.
• Bekkevold, Jo Inge (2 March 2023). "Why China Is Not a Superpower". Foreign Policy.
• "Empire Of Illusion: Frank Dikötter On Why China Isn't A Superpower". Hoover Institution. 1 April 2025.
• Andrew Latham (6 April 2023), China: A great power but not a superpower
• "Opinion: The 'rising superpower' myth about China". CNN. 7 September 2023.

14. Karataş, İbrahim (20 May 2021). "The United States: Is It Still a Superpower?". Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi. 12 (30): 677–688. doi:10.21076/vizyoner.810814.

Wiki markup:

Extended content

<ref name="opponents2">*{{Cite journal|url=https://apcz.umk.pl/HiP/article/view/66714|title=Illusion of Multipolarity: Why the U.S. Remains the Global Superpower|first=Andrzej|last=Demczuk|date=November 18, 2025|journal=Historia i Polityka|issue=54 (61)|pages=35–53|via=apcz.umk.pl|doi=10.12775/HiP.2025.029|doi-access=free}}<li>{{cite web |last=Herman|first=Arthur|date=2026-01-14|title=America Is the Sole Superpower Again|url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/america-is-the-sole-superpower-again-0a89e41a|access-date=2026-02-13|website=The Wall Street Journal}}</li><li>{{cite web |last=Bekkevold|first=Jo Inge|date=2023-03-02|title=Why China Is Not a Superpower|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/02/china-superpower-us-new-cold-war-rivalry-geopolitics/|website=Foreign Policy}}</li>*{{cite web |title=Empire Of Illusion: Frank Dikötter On Why China Isn't A Superpower|url=https://www.hoover.org/research/empire-illusion-frank-dikotter-why-china-isnt-superpower|website=Hoover Institution|date=2025-04-01}}<li>{{citation |author=Andrew Latham|title=China: A great power but not a superpower|date=2023-04-06|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3936751-china-a-great-power-but-not-a-superpower/|language=en-US}}</li>*{{cite web |date=2023-09-07|title=Opinion: The 'rising superpower' myth about China|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/opinions/rising-superpower-myth-china-rayburn-bergen|website=CNN}}</ref>

Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 18:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making new topics for everything. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is normal to bundle citations in this way. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A bold proposal on the colored map

Extant superpower

  United States

Potential superpowers—supported in varying degrees by academics

  China

  European Union

  India

  Russia

This colored map (or its various cousins) has been a staple here for at least 20 years (and also on Potential superpower). Here's a BOLD proposal that may deserve some thoughts:

Should we remove it for good?

Any variations of this map force editors, pretty much in wikivoice, to classify countries as superpowers, potential candidates, or even "former candidates".

If we remove it, we may avoid future disputes over how to describe these countries. Instead of a map like this, we may present objective measures, like time series of GDP, of military spending, of R&D expenditures, etc. Arguably, those time series would be more useful to readers than a map like this. Readers could then interpret the data for themselves and form their own assessment. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 00:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

GeogSage is not the only one having issues with your frequently creating bunch of new threads. Please tell me why you've been doing this instead of creating subsections under a same thread. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

We have been creating big threads for the last few months which lacked focus. Everyone had been talking about everything at once. Talk page, 1+ RfC, 1+ DRNs. Eventually, it got us nowhere. I suggest that we try another format, and talk about one single thing in a thread - one small paragraph/component of the article.

Each of the open thread talks about something different, and is independent on each other. I expect some will resolve (and archived) sooner than others, and some may linger longer. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 01:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If you just put the United States with the other 4, and call them all "Possible extant superpowers" then it wouldn't be much of an issue. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

We could also just list the legends in alphabetical order and offer no further elaboration. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 02:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

"No further elaboration" would be bad cartographic practice. I know Wikipedia generally has a "Bad maps and misinformation are okay if we don't understand why they're bad," and a "cartographic conventions can be ignored if they get in the way of the message we want to push" consensus, but a map should have legend that lets a user understand what we are trying to convey. Missing the legend, someone might be mistaken to believe that we are trying to say these actually ARE superpowers, and alphabetical order would make China be first in the list, so a user might think we're putting it above others for a reason if they don't realize we're using alphabetical order. I'm sure no one in the talk page would ever want for users to make that mistake, much less intentionally leave a map ambiguous enough for it to be a likely possibility, so I think a legend title is necessary. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 10:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Calling it "Possible extant superpowers" is just as unhelpful.

Logically, the phrase has the same meaning as "each of these countries is or is not an extant superpower". This is an empty Tautology (logic) that doesn't add any information.

Back to my original point, should we just delete the map? Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 21:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The current color-coded map lists the US, China, Russia, India, and the EU as "potential superpowers" in Wikivoice. To the best of my knowledge, this grouping does not come from any single published source, so the presentation is likely a work of synthesis.

To ensure verifiability and neutral attribution, I propose replacing it with this alternative map, which presents the information directly from published reports without Wikivoice.

Feedback is welcome. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 23:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

A map that only lists the United States and China would not represent the sources we have and only push a single POV. We could just as easily use a source that only includes the United States, but that would be equally ridiculous. First, the source argument. If you want a single source for the items included, we could point to the Gallup poll results, among others, for explicit mention of the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union. India is a tougher one to find grouped with these four in a single source, however, this is something I've already looked into while working on the section:

• Yet the idea did not die away entirely. On the contrary, as America's fortunes began to fade and those of China started to rise, many began to view the emerging international order in increasingly superpower, possibly even bipolar, terms. China may have been no Soviet Union. Still, its potential was huge and its ambitions global. Nor was it the only potential superpower on the scene seeking to compete with the United States. Europe, and perhaps India in time, could also lay some claim to being, or over time becoming, superpowers of a sort.

• While American scholars claim that the US is still the sole superpower, Chinese ones argue China is already a superpower. Also, Europeans fit the superpower title to the European Union (EU). In addition, Russia and India are seen as candidates for superpowerhood.

Fundamentally, the map is a user created qualitative Chorochromatic map that represents the entities listed within the section. The section does rely on multiple sources, as that is how text works. I have some pretty strong opinions about maps on Wikipedia. One is that if we apply synthesis and OR rules to maps, we can't use user created maps at all. Creating a map is considered by many an act of original research. There are academic journals that focus on publishing original maps. Furthermore, indisputably, almost all maps are created through synthesis. The map boundaries we're using need to be sourced (often, this is a step amateur cartographers skip), and combining those boundaries with a dataset is synthesis. Cartography literally translates to "map/chart writing." The creation of a map is more like creating a paragraph of text then making a bar chart. If we are going to have user created maps on Wikipedia, some synthesis and OR is needed. Fortunately, in this case, we have at least two sources (the International Encyclopedia of Political Science and a peer reviewed publication) that we can point to for the entities included in the map. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor's perspective on cartography is appreciated. However, the essence of the issue is not mapmaking per se. The crux is that the article highlights these five entities together in a single visual element - in this case, a map - but the issue would remain even if they were compiled in Wikivoice into a callout box, table, list, or summary prose. Combining assertions from different sources into a single composite element is still WP:synthesis.

Furthermore, looking closely at the Karataş passage quoted here, the author establishes different tiers: the US as the established superpower, China as an emerging superpower, the EU as "fitting the title", and Russia/India as candidates for "superpowerhood". Stripping out these nuances into a single, uniform list labeled "potential superpowers" is not faithful to the source.

In contrast, presenting the findings of a single published framework (e.g., the Lowy Institute) with explicit in-caption attribution avoids synthesis, respects the source's exact taxonomy, and remains neutral (WP:NPOV) and fully WP:verifiable. If another editor believes another published source's framework complements Lowy's, that source can also be included alongside it to help establish a fuller account of the subject matter. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 16:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Again, we could just as easily use a source that only lists the United States as a superpower. Choosing one that only presents two would not align with the article text in the section the map is in, or other sources, and we would only be presenting one POV. You wanted sources that name the specific countries listed, I provided two that cover 4 of the 5, and one that specifically mentions all 5. The caption specifically says, "supported in varying degrees by academics," as there isn't a single authoritative source, and there are plenty of reliable sources that name more then just the United States and China. As for presenting all of them on a map, if we require all maps on Wikipedia to have a corresponding map in a source showing the same data, we will have to remove a large number of our user generated maps. I understand that you are actively trying to push a POV that China is a superpower, and because doing it all at once is not working due to conflicting sources you are trying to incrementally change the article to reflect your POV, but I believe this is a stretch. If the maps is that much of a problem, and we are going to enforce that all countries named in the map legend must be in the same source, and that the source naming them has a map showing them, then it would be better to not have a map at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I do not engage with speculations on bad faith. Since it's unlikely we'll convince each other, I will step back for now to give space for other editors to weigh in. If no consensus is eventually formed, I will initiate a formal dispute resolution process. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 19:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Not bad faith, I've read your comments on the Chinese superpower article talk page, and you and a few other editors have had a clear trend towards pushing the article towards a narrow definition of the term that supports a position that China is a definitive superpower. There have been multiple editors, but the trend has included excluding other countries mentioned in reliable sources (like what this map change would do), excluding sources that contradict this position, narrowing the scope of the article, selecting evidence to support the position when contradictory evidence exists (like changing this map would), selectively interpreting content from sources, and emphasizing China over other entities mentioned in reliable sources (like changing this map would do). Suddenly arguing to change the map to one that reflects a single source, with the single source happening to be one that only includes the U.S. and China, does not seem like a coincidence because you happen to be concerned about synthesis in user generated maps. Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism), nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I could provide difs on talk pages, but it would be pretty extensive, and pointing out that your edits have a bias seems like pretty fair criticism in light of that.

Also, just remembered to check the data and the Gallup Poll (that you used to create the bar chart) does also include India, just not in the text summary but within the results. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I notice some new edits on the map, attempting to add (1) the Gallup Poll, (2) Karataş, and (3) another encyclopedia as supporting sources for the disputed map. Yet these sources don't support it.

• The Gallup Poll does not say anything about "support from academics". Neither the pollsters nor poll respondents are academics. The poll also asks about Japan and the UK, but they are omitted from the map. The pollsters could have also asked whether Lesotho was also a superpower, but that wouldn't imply support by academics as a superpower. This poll does not support the claim in the caption.
• Neither Karataş nor the other encyclopedia calls all of these countries 'potential superpowers'. As discussed, they describe them in different tiers. They both describe the US affirmatively as a current superpower, and mention India's status as speculation at best. Listing them in a single flat list as potential superpowers would be an innovation by Wikipedia not found in any sources.

Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• I included the UK briefly in the section when moving content around, partly because of that poll. You opened A whole discussion. Highlights of that included "With all due respect @GeogSage your edits and reasoning lack any comprehension." I had planned on flushing out a section for "Superpowers in specific domains" that would have included Japan and the UK, as both have multiple sources for specific domains, however you removed that section (For no valid reason, please restore the content you removed) and opened a discussion about it. Another discussion following that, opened by a temp account, resulted in sarcastic mocking (literally tagged /s) by you and another editor. Kind of hard to actually represent sources when dealing with such adamant defenders of Wikipedia:The Truth.
• The caption of the map says: "Potential superpowers—supported in varying degrees by academics." The map is a user generated Chorochromatic showing the United States, China, European Union, India, and Russia. You challenged that the countries listed did not appear in a source, or that those sources did not present them on a map, and said that was synthesis. To the last part, per Wikipedia:Image use policy: "there is no requirement to point to the similar presentations in any published work as a source (since the presentation would be different) but it is still required to include verifiability information identifying the source(s) of the original data." On the sources including them, the map largely reflects the entities that are discussed in the section, which all have sources. It serves mostly as a reference for the entities mentioned within the section, essentially a Locator map for the section. For a single source discussing all of them to avoid synthesis, Karataş states: "While American scholars claim that the US is still the sole superpower, Chinese ones argue China is already a superpower. Also, Europeans fit the superpower title to the European Union (EU). In addition, Russia and India are seen as candidates for superpowerhood." Pretty clearly shows "varying degrees of support" for these five by "scholars." The Gallup poll mentions these entities and two others, and the Encyclopedia mentions four of the five (excluding Russia). This gives us one source for the five included in the section (avoiding synthesis), as well as the use of the word "academic" if we use scholars to serve as a synonym, and two sources that lend it support but don't exactly mirror it. We could individually cite each country as well, but that is done in the text, and would be citation overkill.
• The world "potential" is not my first choice, but "possible extant superpowers" has received a bit of pushback from you (in this discussion) and others. However, based on latest pushback, changing the caption to, "Possible extant superpowers, or entities having the potential to become one in the near future—supported in varying degrees by academics" I can't imagine that would be a problem given the source, so removing the disputed tag.
• Failing that, there isn't a single source that would work and satisfy all the critics, so we probably shouldn't have a map at all. The argument for including just the United States and China would open the door for a whole host of combinations.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not see changing it to Possible extant superpowers, or entities having the potential to become one in the near future—supported in varying degrees by academics as healing the synthesis problem. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is still creating a new category of countries in Wikivoice.

If you really want to use this map, at the minimum, directly attribute and paraphrase Karataş, something like:

According to Karataş, while American scholars claim that the US is still the sole superpower, Chinese ones argue China is already a superpower. Also, Europeans fit the superpower title to the European Union (EU). In addition, Russia and India are seen as candidates for superpowerhood.

I still wouldn't like it, but at least it is not synthesis. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 07:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean putting the direct attribution within the caption of the map. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 07:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Added a note to the caption. Going into detail paraphrasing Karataş is excessive within a caption. Karataş named these entities, these are the five the section uses, the locator map serves it's purpose. There are plenty of citations within the text, and if someone wants to dig in deeper, they can read the original materials. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC on including the DiME index

Should we include a particular index measuring national power in the article?

The index in question is the DiME (Diplomacy, Military, Economy) Index proposed by Moyer, Pardee Institute, the University of Denver.

• Paper
• Data
• Visualization
• Edit diff

20:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Options

• YES, include the DiME index as a standalone time-series graph under the Contemporary Developments section.
• NO, exclude the DiME index.

Note: a YES vote does not preclude inclusion of other comparable indices in the article. Nor does it preclude substituting the DiME index when the academic literature converges on another measure of power in the future.

20:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Response

Survey (including DiME)

• YES, the DiME index was introduced in the Moyer paper to help answer whether China will surpass the US as a superpower. The index itself is a composite of national strengths along multiple axes. It enriches the article by quantifying different countries' trajectories, rather than providing only a static snapshot of isolated aspects of national power. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 20:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• No As I stated above, the DiME is not explicitly linked to superpower status in the sources you've provided. In the ones that do mention superpowers, it's generally in the context of discussing how others have approached comparing the relative power of different entities. There is likely enough content in reliable sources for the DiME to be its own stand-alone article, but from what I can see, the authors seem to have proposed it as a quantitative replacement for the subjective/qualitative terms "superpower," "great power," "middle power," and "lesser power." They did not provide how this relates to the term superpower. An example of what this would look like can be seen on the page Heat index, where a table links the index to descriptive terms like "Extreme danger," and "caution." We would need some sort of table like this that would link the index to "superpower." Wikipedia should not be the first to explicitly use a specific index to illustrate a term. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• Huh? Include how? In what context? Based on what sources? CMD (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  The proposal is to include the time series graph here, based on this paper. For the full context, please see this revision where the graph is placed right under Contemporary Developments.

  The proposed caption is

  Diplomacy, Military, Economy (DiME) Index from 1960 to 2023, compiled by Pardee Institute, University of Denver, a measure of countries' share of global power via equally weighted measures of diplomatic presence, military spending, nuclear weapons, and trade in goods and services. [footnote to the paper]

  Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 22:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (including DiME)

• The visualization is meant to replace the colored map in this article and the spun-off Potential superpower. (See here.) These maps state, in wikivoice, which countries are superpowers and which aren't. By replacing these maps with the proposed chart, we can highlight the countries we cover in the article without giving any particular POV undue weight. We can also present the trend to provide fuller context. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 20:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is the RFC you can come up with? If so, then.... BTW, perhaps I should've started a pre-RFC brainstorming thread before this(!) happened. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  The RfC question is deliberately narrowly scoped and neutral in order to keep discussion smooth and focused.

  • If you have things to share on the topic, the survey and discussion sections are wide open for feedback.
  • If you want to brainstorm on other topics, please use the other thread.

  Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 21:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I stated what needed to happen here, and that no amount of editors' opinions can make a link where none exists. I have told you what the concerns are with the index, and told you how to address these concerns. Another editor echoed this concern. WP:RFCBEFORE states that "editor time is valuable," and for the past half-year, this talk page has been a huge time sink. Instead of wasting time trying to use votes, just find at least one good source that makes a solid connection between the index and the topic of the article. Whoever closes this, please exclude any "votes" without sources, or sources that do not discuss the article's topic, and look at discussions around sources that actually discuss how this index links to the topic of the article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  What is the one sentence version why the source is allegedly no good? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  The source is fine as a source in a general sense, the problem is that the DiME is not explicitly linked to the article topic, but seems to be another approach for discussing the relative power of different entities. The index itself has some possible issues, but that is besides the point of no explicit link describing how the DiME relates to superpower status. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• I appreciate the other editor's perspective, and it will help if we first understand the Moyer paper's motivation and research structure:

• Introduction: The authors note that there's an inconsistent view on whether China is on track to surpass the US as the leading superpower, pointing to the difficulties and limitations in measuring national strengths.
• Solution: The authors then resolve the issue in three steps:
  1. Introduce the DiME Index to capture multiple aspects of national power
  2. Formulate a forecasting methodology to extrapolate future trends
  3. Perform scenario analysis to test alternative assumptions.
• Conclusion: The authors conclude that a transition between China and the US in relative material capabilities is likely, and discuss possible policy implications.

Key takeaways:

• The usage is directly quoted from the source. Moyer's paper explicitly connects evaluating superpower status to the proposed metric. Including the data this way is direct attribution. The link between the article and the index simply exists.
• By bridging qualitative concepts and quantitative methods, the peer-reviewed index provides a grounded source for us to enrich the article. The index goes beyond applying fuzzy labels to different countries; it extrapolates the data and lays out the trajectories. 
• For our purpose, this is arguably more useful to our readers than listing which countries are superpowers or stating that some people think X is a superpower even though some other people don't agree (and repeat this for countries Y and Z).

The main goal of this RfC is to allow uninvolved editors to review whether this verifiable capability metric enriches the article under policy. Let's welcome broader community input and allow the closer to independently weigh the facts and policy arguments. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 06:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The main goal of this RfC is to try to get support to insert this index without a source directly making the connection. The authors discuss the difficulty of discussing relative national capabilities, and discusses how others have gone about trying to discuss that. The use of the term "superpower" is part of that. Once the authors move on from discussing past work and other methods for comparing national capabilities to introduce their index, they don't mention superpowers again in the paper. They never actually state how index scores would translate to superpower status. This index seems to be an alternative to an ordinal approach. If the index should be included, finding a source that unambiguously makes the connection should be easy. A paper that both makes the connection and reviews multiple indexes, including this one, would be ideal. After reading both the talk page here and on the Chinese Wikipedia article, I believe that you are trying to gather "data and evidence" to prove China "is" a superpower, regardless of any arguments in sources that contradict this POV, and that you are set on this index because you believe it will help in that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 09:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not engage with speculations that assume bad faith, and will keep our focus strictly on facts and policies.

To address the talking point on a "threshold table" - another editor seems to have conjured up a requirement that a source must contain a mapping that converts continuous index values to the discrete concepts in order to be included in an article. Such requirement is not grounded in any policies. If it did, we would have to exclude all kinds of GDP/military spending data from this article, since no universally agreed mapping exist. The same would apply to numerous social science articles.

Moyer's paper explicitly deploys the DiME index to evaluate national capability trajectories within the framework of superpower transitions. Making claims otherwise is a result of a selective reading of the source materials, ignoring its stated research objectives altogether. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 17:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I guess my question is WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Is this index just some random academic's measurements or is it something people actually use? Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Moyer’s DiME Index is cited by other authors:

• Origin of the Concept: The DIME framework (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic) has been a standard U.S. Joint Doctrine for qualitatively evaluating national power since the Cold War.
• Moyer’s Contribution: Moyer modifies and quantifies this qualitative framework into a numerical index by combining indicators across economic, military, and diplomatic axes.
• Citations in other publications:
  • Eisenman & Meng (2026): Evaluates the DiME Index and older measures as a foundational, systematic multivariate metric when introducing their own Comprehensive National Power Index.
  • da Vinha & Oliveira (2026) (in Spanish): Cites Moyer’s index to analyze regional hegemony and power dynamics in Latin America in the aerospace arena.
  • Hughes (2026) (an affiliate of Moyer at Denver): Applies the index to analyze polarity and international systems under realist and liberal lenses
  • Institute for Security Studies - African Futures: Cites the DiME index as a key power model to advocate UN Security Council reform

Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 01:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely, I checked the four publications you included, and as far as I can tell, none of them mention the term "superpower." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Is that all you need? A single sentence in a reliable source that contains both "DIME" and "superpower" (without an intervening negative)? If you can be clear about what you need, then I'm willing to go looking for a source that suits you, but I don't want to then have a debate about shifting goalposts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I included these four sources to illustrate that the index is indeed WP:USEDBYOTHERS. While Moyer’s original work focused on quantifying and analyzing US and China's superpower status, those four papers demonstrate that other researchers use the DiME index as a generic national power metric in various contexts Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 10:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Redwolf and GeogSage, thanks so much for your dedication to this article. I’m sorry there’s been light participation in this RfC, that’s discouraging when we’re trying to make progress on improving the article. Geog, is there some minimal mention you would accept? I ask in the interest of closing this question and moving on to others. Dw31415 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The main source discusses superpowers in the introduction, and then introduces the index without relating the index to superpowers. A source that specifically relates the index to superpowers, such as simply stating "Entities with a score over ____ were considered superpowers in our study," would bridge that gap. Ideally, we should have a reason to use this specific index over the other options available, but the first hurdle would be explicitly linking an index score to the qualitative category of "superpower." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

So is your position that this DiME index can only be included if a RS uses the index and the term "superpower" together in published material? Dw31415 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

A source that defines a threshold as suggested is just as unlikely to resolve objections.

E.g., another index, the Lowy Institute Asia Power Index establishes a threshold (scoring >70 points for superpower status, which the US and China clear). Yet it was still objected to on neutrality and POV grounds. (diff)

Moyer clearly explained the motivation for creating the index: without such an index, analyzing superpower status is hard. It is unclear to me how his paper fails to satisfy the standard verification policy WP:V/WP:NPOV. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

We have a problem with WP:BLUDGEONING here.

I certainly am not willing to read through a huge repetive discussion to figure out who has the best argument.

By my count here are the number of comments on this talk page:

• Redwolf Milkshake Fox: 88
• GeogSage: 57
• Dunnowy123: 26
• Asilvering: 14
• 16dvnk: 13
• All IPs combined: 11
• George Ho: 4
• PaulRKil: 3

And now the same top names are filling up the comments section of the RfC.

Keep in mind that many times a bludgeoning editor encourages another editor to bludgeon (32 of GeogSage's comments were direct answers to comments from Redwolf Milkshake Fox, for example). It is really hard to stay silent when someone asks you a question.

If you haven't changed someone's views by posting 25 comments you are not going to do any better by posting another 25 or another 50.

If an administrator decides that the bludgeoning is discouraging participation by other editors, the usual solution is a topic ban for the one or maybe two editors who have posted the most. I don't think anyone wants that.

I propose that, for a week or two, some of you stop posting new talk page comments and maybe even stop editing the page for a while so as to give other editors a chance to contribute without having to drink out of a firehose. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I've already been taking a soft Wikibreak by not editing as much as usual (you can see this on my User stats under "month count" pretty clearly), because of this page. If you look at the page statistics, or my edit history here, I've been working on this page for a while. Past few months, that has become nearly impossible, as nearly every change results in a new discussion being opened. I believe we're on two failed DRNs, and I think the 3rd RfC in under a year. Most of the problems stem from editors wanting to assert stuff in Wikivoice that is seriously contested in reliable sources, trying to restrict the scope of the article, or argue for adding content that is not clearly linked to the topic. It is pretty disheartening that the page is so locked down, and it started to stress me out to have my username pinged multiple times a week, especially after tag team mocking up in the Talk:Superpower#The_page_has_become_a_joke discussion (I believe I've been pinged 32 times on current talk page discussions, however I believe there were more comments directed at me I was responding to then that). I don't want to ignore comments directed at me or my edits. Would love for more experienced editors to step in to help avoid POV pushing, but I believe some of them have become frustrated and taken the page off their watchlists (based on this message on my talk page at least). Will continue to try and step back a bit, but really don't want to just "give up and go away." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Point well taken. I may have responded and proposed improvement too quickly; thank you for making this observation. It’s easy to get caught up in the process.

I will step back from this page for a while unless someone comments or asks me a question. Hopefully, this will give sufficient space to other editors to review the RfC and evaluate the sources. I appreciate the reminder. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 01:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, please stop pinging other users. Pings are for notifying someone who has obviously stopped watching the page long ago about a new comment. They are not for discussions where the person is already participating. That's what the watchlist is for. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

there we go again

Since last's section (bludgeoning), almost all editors took break (I was inactive since last 2 months), & we saw geogsage doing what he does best, push his biased agenda, revert from consensus, & vandalize the page (that's what he is doing in guise of discussion). It's high time we restrict him (& georgeho), team up to prevent this page getting ridiculously uninformative & prevent integrity of wikipedia. I call upon PaulKril, RedowlfMilkshakeFox, GuyMacron, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) & other like minded people who have done good research & properly contributed to information to get together & save image of Wikipedia. We show understanding, we become polite, we are democratic, that makes people like geogsage & georgeho to become arrogant, disregarding, & inconsiderate. All their articles are either opinion pieces, some random articles from old newspapers, or their personal biases. As against that, we have consistently shown facts, figures, statistics. ~2026-53080-99 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Please avoid trying to canvas because you disagree with the direction of a page. I, for one, think it's good that this page avoid claims that any given country is a superpower and instead gives more focus to the discursive position of the term. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not about what you like or what I like. It's not about which country you hate, which country I like. I come from the country which has one of the highest anti Chinese sentiments, but we do grudgingly accept China's superpower status. Just by avoiding claims, we cannot overlook the facts & we need to accept realities. ~2026-53001-53 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Really don't want to even bother responding to this, but will drop two points:

• Wikipedia:Civility
• Sources on what is considered a "Superpower"

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you will not respond as you never had any strong facts & statistics to begin with, but only dumb articles from which makes bizarre claims, which makes no sense, & remember you should be the last person on Wikipedia who should be talking about civility, you preaching about civility is as good as Adolf Hitler preaching secularism. Just out of curiosity, why do you hate China so much, that you are literally willing to stay online 24/7 just to make sure someone doesn't even suggest that on Wikipedia ? Your profile says you're American, so you even hate your own country that you refuse to acknowledge your country as superpower & put Russia in same league ? ~2026-53001-53 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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 "
• Even extensive statistics are not enough to define the rise to the status of a superpower.
• Does insisting that we exclude other entities besides the U.S. and China mean you hate those entities?

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 09:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Please chill. I'm deliberately staying quiet to let this page cool down a bit. It'd be helpful to put down a few points in this thread on how you'd like to improve the page. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 21:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

my dear friend, that's the main problem ! I, you & all like minded people stay quiet, so people like geogsage can vandalize page without any constraints. Remember when you just suggested putting DiME (Diplomacy, Military, Economy) Index, geogsage vehemently opposed, when I put figures of gdp, military spending, r&d / patent filings, diplomatic corps etc., he rejected, but what he does is put some article from 2011 stating that by 2025 xyz country will be superpower, & put's it in superpower section. when we decided to take a break, he cunningly became active reverted all the stuff to his liking, since he knew that I don't have account & can't edit locked articles, he put a lock on editing. Remember, the more quiet we will be, the more unrestricted in spreading biased disinformation he will be. ~2026-53001-53 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)