Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Bengali dialects	New	Msasag (t)	17 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 3 hours	Msasag (t)	2 days, 17 hours
A*Pop	New	Zirthes (t)	12 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 3 hours	Zirthes (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Martha Reeves	New	FusionLord (t)	6 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	FusionLord (t)	20 hours
Anti-Hindu sentiment	New	Shahinshah121 (t)	6 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 3 hours
Greek military ranks	New	ThanmadGR (t)	4 days, 21 hours	None	n/a	ThanmadGR (t)	4 days, 16 hours
Superpower	New	George Ho (t)	4 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours	GeogSage (t)	2 days, 3 hours
Slovak Republic (1939-1945)	New	~2026-41091-89 (t)	2 days, 22 hours	None	n/a	~2026-41091-89 (t)	2 days, 22 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Bengali dialects

– New discussion.

Filed by Msasag on 07:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Bengali dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Msasag (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)
• Jacklincoln47 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over the classification of certain language varieties (Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian, Surjapuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese (Goalparia dialects), Assamese (Kamrupi dialects), Odia (Northern dialects)) on a map file (File:Bengali dialects2.png) and its versions (like File:Bengali dialects.png) across multiple articles. The map currently classifies these as dialects of Bengali.
1. 3/4 users agreed that these language varieties should be excluded from the maps on Bengali dialects. The 4th user and creator of the maps agreed only to remove the Kamrupi and Goalpariya dialects and the Hojai district of Assam.
2. It should be noted that these varieties have recognition as distinct from Bengali by modern linguists, ethnologue etc. Surjapuri and several others lack Bengali linguistic identity among any speakers. Several also have formal recognition from government (Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese, Odia).

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

File talk:Bengali dialects2.png#Issues with maps

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can help evaluate whether the sourcing provided is sufficient grounds to exclude these varieties from maps specifically about Bengali dialects.

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jacklincoln47

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

This DRN request is premature, but I will leave it open rather than closing it because the problem can be remedied. The discussion has been in the wrong place. The discussion has been on the file talk page of a map rather than the article talk page. I am marking the file talk page to show that the discussion is being moved to the article talk page, and am asking the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page for between 24 and 48 hours. One reason is to see whether any other editors offer opinions, and another is for the editors to restate, on the article talk page, what the issues are. I will check on the discussion in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the summary on the article talk page as requested, pinging the involved editors. Msasag (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by volunteer (Bengali dialects)

Is there an interest in moderated discussion about Bengali dialects? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave alone.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I'm interested in continuing.
What I want changed: The map and its versions (used across several articles on Bengali dialects) currently includes several language varieties as dialects of Bengali. Based on discussion and sourcing so far, 3/4 users participating (@Fylindfotberserk and Chaipau: and me), have reached agreement to exclude Assam (Kamrupi dialects, Goalpariya dialects, Central dialects, that are considered as Assamese and the western Goalpariya variety is also considered as Kamtapuri), including Sylheti language speaking southern part of Assam and other Sylheti speaking regions (Sylhet division of Bangladesh, northern Tripura), Odisha (Odia dialects), Bihar (Surjapuri language), Nepal (Rajbanshi language), the Kamtapuri/Rangpuri speaking region (northern West Bengal and Rangpur division of Bangladesh) and the Chittagonian language speaking region (Chittagong division) from the map. I also proposed marking Noakhali language as disputed on the map if not excluded. The map's creator @Jacklincoln47: agreed to remove all the areas from Assam's Brahmaputra valley but asked for continued discussions on Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian and Noakhali. As we've noted in the talk pages, the former three languages have enough resources that support that they're distinct languages, plus Kamtapuri/Rangpuri also has a formal official status and recognition as distinct language by government of India.
No other questions from me. Msasag (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

A*Pop

– New discussion.

Filed by Zirthes on 20:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• A*Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zirthes (talk · contribs)
• Livelikemusic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am in a disagreement with the user Livelikemusic over where an image should be positioned in the A*Pop article. The image in question is of Tyla performing at the Montreux Jazz Festival in July 2026, and is currently positioned directly under the A*Pop#Release and promotion section of the article. When I first added the image in this edit I positioned it directly next to the "Live performances" paragraph (under the Release and promotion section) which I believe is the correct thing to do as the image directly relates to that paragraph. At the time because the paragraph was quite short, the image caused "section bleeding" (as referred to by the other editor) whereby it pushed into the "Singles and videos" paragraph directly below. Livelikemusic then removed the image in this edit, giving this as a reason for doing so. Subsequently, I expanded the "Live performances" paragraph to where positioning the image alongside it would not "bleed" into the "Singles and videos" paragraph below, and re-added the image in this edit. Livelikemusic proceeded to once again remove the image citing "section bleeding" as the reason, despite the image now now longer pushing into the "Singles and videos" paragraph, something which they seem to have ignored. I then re-added the image again in this edit, after which they moved the image to a generic position at the top of the Release and promotion section. I am highly confused as to why they chose to position the image here, and their reasoning for not having it alongside the "Live performances" paragraph currently.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I started a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:A*Pop#Montreux Jazz Festival image in "Release and promotion" at the other editor's request and to also prevent an edit war, however they have shown reluctance to participate in an ongoing discussion with more than one response. I tried to request a third opinion, but was unsuccessful due to the discussion on the talk page not being thorough enough.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate additional opinions on where the image should be placed under the Release and promotion section of the article, such as next to the Live performances paragraph, in its current position, or somewhere else.

Summary of dispute by livelikemusic

My response, which I left via this edit, pretty much sums up my stance, including reference to Manual of Style (e.g., MOS:SECTIONLOC) and other editing guidelines (e.g., how-to guide) while exampling why I took the stance I did within my edit. I never responded to the other response as I was awaiting to see if any other users participated in the discussion to provide other points of view, especially after being accused of "nit-picking", which I was not. I felt it safe to await to see if others brought their own opinions and views, and was doing my due diligence to participate in a talk page discussion. Not sure why a noticeboard discussion needed to be opened after only two days, though. Seems a bit hasty, especially after it appears a 3O was declined by Doniago, due to what they cited as "insufficient conversation". livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (A*Pop)

I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that there is an issue about the placement of an image. I have three questions. First, if there is an issue about the placement of an image, I am asking each editor to provide me with a link to either a version of the article or a sandbox copy of the article showing exactly where they are proposing that the image be located. Second, are the editors willing to accept my binding Third Opinion? (I will not provide a non-binding opinion, because that would make me non-neutral in any subsequent discussion.) Third, if there are any other content issues, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor disagrees with, or what part of the article another editor wants to make and you do not want made.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (A*Pop)

I would like the image to be positioned as it is in this edit. I am open to a third opinion, I don't think this needs to be escalated any further as it is quite a minor dispute. Zirthes (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by livelikemusic (A*Pop)

First, if there is an issue about the placement of an image, I am asking each editor to provide me with a link to either a version of the article or a sandbox copy of the article showing exactly where they are proposing that the image be located.

I am proposing this location (which is also its current position) as per the most recently made edit to the article.

Second, are the editors willing to accept my binding Third Opinion?

I see zero reason not to accept your binding third opinion. Apologies if this is not where my response should be or if it should not be formatted this way. This is my first time (to my knowledge) participating in a WP:DRN discussion. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

A*Pop discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by volunteer (A*Pop)

My preference is for the image to be positioned next to the Live Performances section, since that section refers to her performance at the Montreux festival.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (A*Pop)

Thank you for your input, and no I don't have any further questions. Zirthes (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Martha Reeves

– New discussion.

Filed by FusionLord on 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Martha Reeves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FusionLord (talk · contribs)
• Sombodysomewhere (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Somebodysomewhere is reverting edits to the Martha Reeves page with giving reason or using the talk page topic created to discuss the edit. The nature of the content is if Martha Reeves should be called a politcian in his summary/introductary paragraph given that we have done so for entertainment celebrities who have been elected prior, during, or after their main careers such as Jerry Springer & Sonny Bono. She was elected as an Detroit City Council member from 2005-2009.

Source:

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

They do not use the talk page or interact with anyone concerning the content in contention, so perhaps a neutral third party can weigh in & decide either way.

Summary of dispute by Sombodysomewhere

I missed the talk page on my edit, that's on me. While I do believe identifying Marth Reeves as a politician because of one unsuccessful local term is misleading and incorrect, I didn't continue to undo the change after I was messaged by an actual user. I'm not sure why this was elevated to a dispute before I gave a response, the other user hit undo, sent me a message and brought it here in a day, without input from me. More to the point of the dispute, are we adding the term politician to someone's introductory sentence if they only served one local term from which she was regularly absent, and haven't been involved in politics before or since. My perspective is that its an inaccurate way to describe a person with only a little background in an area and by the same logic she would have many more titles as a secretary, actress, Sag-AFTRA board member, etc.

Martha Reeves discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notification is required for all noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I have just notified them on their user talk page. My apologies.FusionLord (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Martha Reeves)

I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is desired. Please read DRN Rule D and the contentious topic rule on biographies of living persons. Is there any disagreement about any content issue other than the use of the world 'politician'? If so, please state what the other disagreements are.

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

There are no other issues, only the single use of the word "Politician" in the context of her introduction paragraph. Sombodysomewhere (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Then what other word would be appropriate? Activist or political activist would not be appropriate given that she was elected to an office, so politician seems more accurate. She might be a retired politician, but a politician nonetheless. FusionLord (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Martha was a politician for a term, but that's not what she was known for nor did it take up a large portion of her life. She also did not retire from public office, she served one low level term and then was not voted back in during the following primary. Prior to adding "and politician" she was "an American R&B & pop singer.". There was never a need for a third "and", but if you had to have one then "Actress" would be far more accurate, though also unnecessary and misleading. Sombodysomewhere (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

So how many terms does one have to win as an elected official to be considered a politician? I would also like to add that your pejorative use "actress" seems to imply that your opposition to her "politician" label is more because you have a negative opinion of her than trying relay accurate information of her article, especially since she is not noted to have been in any film or television roles. Wikipedia is not here to serve anyone's personal vendettas.FusionLord (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I never said she wasn't a politician, we are discussing this in the context of an introductory sentence where a third "And" is introduced because of it. She has very little background as a politician. By comparison Martha Reeves has been a board member of SAG-AFTRA for nearly 20 years, has numerous television appearances (solo, with other singers, in interviews, and as a show contestant), performed on Broadway, and she had a cameo in Tenacious D. I stated that the use of the word Actress would be more accurate. In no way is Actress a pejorative, I'm not sure how you got there.

A third "and" is excessive, Martha is predominantly a singer, that's my summary. Because FusionLord wants to mischaracterize my statements and blindly accuse me of a personal vendetta I would like a Mod to make a ruling after the next response from FusionLord. I am comfortable with the facts as presented. Sombodysomewhere (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I too would like to a ruling from a mod. Despite her lack of background in politics, she still managed to be elected as one, therefore becoming a politician. He does not deny that she is a politician, but has decided that because she did not win a lot of elections that it does bare mentioning despite numerous articles naming her as such when noting entertainers & singers who have crossed the threshold into politics. That she only went for one term is a matter for her & the voters, and not us. His/her lack of clarification on how many elections does a person need to win to be considered or noted as a politician creates a series of goal post moving that will never be satisfied. If one is not enough, then we have a whole host of articles that need to be reviewed & possibly deleted such as here if one one is not enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_who_served_a_single_term FusionLord (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Martha Reeves)

I said to read DRN Rule D. Maybe I should have said to read it twice. Please take note that point 8 says not to engage in back-and-forth discussion.

My choice about an issue in the wording of a biography of a living person is to let the decision about the word 'politician' be made by the volunteers at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Unless there is an objection, I will ask the volunteers at the biographies of living persons noticeboard whether the descriptor 'politician' should be used for someone who served one term on a local council.

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, no issues. FusionLord (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment

– New discussion.

Filed by Shahinshah121 on 23:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Anti-Hindu sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Shahinshah121 (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• IND123456 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page covers a sensitive issue. Not everyone agree that anti-Hindu sentiment or Hinduphobia is real. For some people, it is like anti-white racism. For others, questioning it is very offensive. Most academics have criticized it as a Hindu nationalist false claim. This has led to two linked problems.

1 - Numerous editors have tagged , removed content, and blocked the addition of new content about criticism of anti-Hindu sentiment. The criticism section is very small and not even mentioned in the lead. A lot of this is based on editors saying that they want only WP:RS, but the standards seem not justified. Editors have rejected self-published materials by established scholars, demanded no citations to any journalists that have criticized Hinduphobia, and refused to mention a Hindu American group that believes Hinduphobia is not real. Some editors have blocked academic sources because they don't like the scholar. All of this is on the talk page.

2 - Some of the same editors are preventing the removal of a section on social media that is sourced to one, self-published source by non-experts. One author is an undergraduate. I see a double standard. I am not sure how to move forward given that many editors seem emotional and angry about this.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#Recent_updates, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#failed_verification_tags, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Hindu_sentiment#removed_social_media_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I ask for help with setting standards for WP:RS that apply site-wide. I ask for adjudication of inserting more criticism and removing the social media section. I ask for help framing an issue where a group claims discrimination but many scholars think it is often false, like anti-white racism.

Summary of dispute by Toddy1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Not a suitable topic for DRN. As framed by Shahinshah121 this is a behavioural issue, not a content issue. The complaints that he/she made about other editors above mirror observations that the other editors have made about Shahinshah121's behaviour. The issues are across a number of articles, not just Anti-Hindu sentiment (for example: Hindutva, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and Vikram Sampath). Shahinshah121 seems to believe that other editors are showing bad faith.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by UnpetitproleX

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by IND123456

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Anti-Hindu sentiment discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Anti-Hindu sentiment)

I am ready to act as the moderator if this is a content dispute about what the article should say. It is not clear whether that is what is being requested. I will start by asking all editors to read the contentious topic rules for South Asia, and to advise editors that disruptive editing can be reported to Arbitration Enforcement, but that editors should read the boomerang essay before making any content report.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state whether you want to make any changes to the article that another editor disagrees with, or whether another editor wants to make changes that you disagree with. If you do not want to discuss the content of the article, you may consider asking policy questions at the Village Pump or asking for advice at the Teahouse. If you are here for moderated discussion of the article, please read DRN Rule D.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Greek military ranks

– New discussion.

Filed by ThanmadGR on 11:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Greek military ranks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The core issue is that Cdjp1 is blindly copying erroneous data from a 1988 commercial booklet, as if it were an official source forcing objective factual errors onto Wikipedia, claiming WP:VERIFIABILITY.

This blind copying has created numerous issues, such a major visual absurdity regarding the chevrons, where a Conscript Corporal is assigned two chevrons inside the OR-4 cell even though the user's own uploaded image for a Permanent Corporal correctly displays only one chevron.

The user is also using the book's publication year as an infallible source in other ways, as in restricting the infobox timeline to 1980-1988. For the Air Force, I cited presidential decrees from 1980 and 2000 containing identical photographic plates proving the insignia remained unchanged until 2004. He deleted this timeline and an image for Yposminias I created according to the regulations, saying that the 1990 Decree "doesn't specify patterns"—ignoring both the visual evidence of continuance and how Greek military regulations work via internal staff orders.

The rationale regarding the Navy is absurd; citing the time period as 1986–1988, the user negates the validity of the Ministerial Decree beyond Davis' publication, as if a commercial booklet was a more authoritative source than Greek Laws, Regulations, and the fact that save for the doubling of the PNCO U-shaped chevrons in 2004 and the introduction of EPOP insignia after 2001, the rest of the insignia remains unchanged till the coming into force of Law 5265/2026 (but that concerns "Current insignia").

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I've extensively elaborated on how Greek Uniforms Regulations work and what the issues in Cdjp1's edits are; I've done my best to avoid Edit warring, restricting myself to a mere 11 edits which have been largely counteracted by 56 edits since the time I began participating in this page. I opened a previous DRN request which due to Force majeure was abandoned.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Αν independent mediator is needed to cease the the unilateral edit-piling and enforce basic and Greek military logic, taking into consideration the operational realities of the Hellenic Armed Forces. A ruling on the correct 1975-2004 infobox timelines and a resolution of any structural logic contradictions would be most welcome.

Summary of dispute by Cdjp1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My arguments remain the same, what matters is what's verifiable. If you provide no sources, as you didn't to begin with, we go with the sources available. As can be seen from the talk page comment, when you provided sources and pointed out those errors, I did in fact make the changes. Your repeated arguments of "it should be this way, because that is logical" actively works against our Policies and Guidelines, as I repeatedly explained. You have finally started to provide sources, and so the page has been updated in line with those sources, which are the majority of the 56 edits you highlight that I have made. This includes correctly formatting the referencing, providing links to digital copies of the documents referenced, and providing the exact pages within the documents that provide the information. I would say I am now at a loss as to why you think this needs to come to dispute resolution when the page is being updated in line with official government documents, but it seems to be because you want to ignore what the documents actually say and force in information that is not verified by the sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As an addendum, you state a previous DRN request which due to Force majeure was abandoned, why was I not informed of this, and what do you mean by Force majeure? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Unforeseen circumstances outside the scope of this debate, let alone Wikipedia. For that I owe you an apology. ThanmadGR (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, then no problem there. I hope it was nothing too bad for yourself, and I hope whatever it was is now resolved in a good outcome. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As a correction to my last comment, this relates to you claiming that we can imagine that the ranks were the same for almost 15 years, when the verified source actually said the previous legislation detailing the ranks had been appealed, but provided no indication of what the ranks were going forward. But I see you have today added a source for the claim of continued use of the ranks that is verifiable, so there is no issue there. So, I will revert to my statement that I am at a loss as to why you think this needs to come to dispute resolution, when you are providing verifiable sources, they are being kept in the article, and the information is being corrected to what the sources say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue here like in the first place is not the Air Force, not even the timeline itself – I agree that that's more than resolvable. While I recognise the essence of your arguments and policy-wise, I will raise no objections, the main issue here to my eyes is Davies insofar it's used as a "reliable" (I've elaborated on Regulations and Standing Orders, so I'm not contesting the Accessibility criterion related to Davis' Verifiable Source characterization) source for the Army, has an erroneous result. I'm willing to keep searching for a Presidential Decree/Ministerial Decision for the Army (perhaps in vain), but I'd really like a to find a middle way here. ThanmadGR (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Greek military ranks discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Superpower

– New discussion.

Filed by George Ho on 18:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Superpower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• 16dvnk (talk · contribs)
• GeogSage (talk · contribs)
• PaulRKil (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Liu (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-42408-01 (talk · contribs)
• asilvering (talk · contribs)
• Plumber (talk · contribs)
• Dunnowy123 (talk · contribs) (added, --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC))

Dispute overview

Ways to present China's "superpower" status have been debated still, especially since the previous RFC discussion (link) was closed as "no consensus". More than that, one version presenting other states—the US, the EU, the UK, for example—as merely possible superpowers has been questioned. Nonetheless, another version presenting the US and China as plausible "superpowers" has been also questioned.

After the previous DRN request failed, further back-and-forth discussions have been made as well as editing attempts. The dispute hasn't been still resolved. Even WP:NPOVN was tried, but the result has been low participation from uninvolved editors. Oh, and we editors have interpreted the "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV variously.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Superpower#Another path forward?
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Superpower lede and content
• Talk:Superpower#Potential extant superpowers section?
• Talk:Superpower#UK is also an extant superpower?
• Talk:Superpower#Current framing is a worst of all worlds compromise and flies in the face of common sense
• Talk:Superpower#This discussion is spiraling out of control...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The previous DRN request failed because I didn't follow Robert McClenon's instructions on proceeding this request. That matter was then resolved at WP:VPM (discussion link). Unsure whether Robert will volunteer this again, but I promise to follow any volunteer's instructions this time. Well, brace yourselves GeogSage's arguments about putting sources first before any other. Indeed, I want another RFC.

Summary of dispute by 16dvnk

The superpower issue remains unresolved. There was continued back-and-forth and we used multiple methods at great lengths, to no avail. The debate was about whether China is a superpower or not. My perspective is that the side with more reliable sources claiming would get more weight, while the side with less would get less weight, and address the debate at the lead. This is fair without promoting fringe ideas, and is valid according to WP:NPOV. 16dvnk (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GeogSage

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have stated this at length on the talk page, but will repeat briefly here. I do not believe that presenting anything as a definitive contemporary superpower is in line with Wikipedia policy or an accurate reflection of sources. I believe the dispute stems from editors who want to start from a particular POV and work backward to support it, rather than considering multiple perspectives we have available. I believe that this version of the article (current at the time of writing) satisfies policy and sources better than what the article had looked like, or the proposed changes made that use Wikivoice to describe some entities as accepted superpowers, by emphasizing the ambiguous nature of the topic and giving attention to reliable sources with differing opinions in each case. Specifically, I believe the following text addresses the dispute over how we present China:

"Today, scholarly discourse and public perception regarding superpower status vary widely. Commonly cited entities as candidates for extant superpowers, or current powers likely to be superpowers in the near future, include the United States, China, the European Union, India, and Russia."

The two main reasons are:

• WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED: There is no formal, agreed-upon definition for superpower or set of criteria that makes a superpower. This is established in multiple reliable sources, and I have put some of the quotes regarding this on the Wikiquote page I created for Superpower. As there is no formal definition, reliable sources make contradictory claims. In this case, we present the claims as opinions, not fact. I have included some of these sources in the article and can provide examples.
• WP:RS/AC: We lack a systematic review that states a consensus of what entities are superpowers, or any reliable source for what to include on such a list.

I believe that other editors disagree with this and want us to present some entities as accepted “extant superpowers”, focusing mostly on the question of should we include China and the US, or just the US, while presenting other entities mentioned in reliable sources as “potential superpowers.”

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PaulRKil

First and foremost, this dispute initially began over whether or not China was a superpower along with the United States. This has lead to the current state of the article where it lists China, the US, India, the EU, and Russia as "Commonly cited entities as candidates for extant superpowers" which flattens the countries into a single category. This version does not offer a compromise that satisfies the purpose of the article. This comes in the aftermath of an RfC that was closed as "no consensus" but further discussion in the talk page has solidified around China and the US being superpower nations. However, making those changes in the article have proven to be impossible due to an editors insistence on keeping all five nations as possible extant superpowers.

I have tried to make edits using contemporary scholarly, peer reviewed journals such as ones written by Jennifer Lind and David A Lake that assert that China and the US are the world's current superpower nations. These edits have been constantly reverted by the editor who has made the current version of the article. It should be of note, sources used are largely analyses in newsmagazines and sources from as long ago as 2010.

The editor behind these changes cites that this version satisfies Wikipedia's core content policies and NPOV but the editor is severely overstating every rule in order to justify the current 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 superpowers since 2024 as opinion misses how we are supposed to weigh experts. 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. We need to represent 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.

Bottom line is this: while there is debate on what a superpower is, contemporary scholarly sources cite the United States and China as the world's current superpowers. India, the EU, and Russia are considered temporary superpowers to varying degrees. China and the US have challenges that threaten their superpower status and there are elements that are keeping Russia, the EU, and India from becoming superpowers. Anything short of that fails to properly state what are superpowers. PaulRKil (talk)

Summary of dispute by Moxy

Wikipedia:Does deletion help? - Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on the academic debate currently ongoing . Even AI can find the debate...."Scholars debate whether China is a full superpower, a partial economic leader, or a fragile state. While some experts highlight its unmatched manufacturing and technological scale, others point to structural weaknesses, demographic decline, and limited global alliance networks as barriers to true superpower status"Moxy🍁 19:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aaron Liu

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I think the current lede covers this well, even if it's weird that the way it satisfies DueWeight for China's elevated claim is by saying that they are also a "potential superpower" while the others are "extant [or] likely to be superpowers in the near future".

The current version adds the info on the debate to the lede:

Some contemporary sources have described China as a potential superpower due to its modern military, global influence, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, economic and manufacturing volume,[24][25] though opponents have challenged that assumption by citing its domestic challenges, 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.[26] This shift has been described as a move to bipolarity or a multipolar world, divided into spheres of influence based on geographic proximity.

In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ~2026-42408-01

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by asilvering

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Plumber

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A consensus exists on the talk page that reliable scholarly sources say there are two superpowers, the United States (since the 20th century) and China (since the 21st century). There is disagreement with this consensus by about a third of commentators, who believe only the United States is a superpower as of 2026. One editor is insisting there are no superpowers and is removing well-sourced scholarly information from the page in favor of news magazines. There is a very broad consensus against those edits. --Plumber (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dunnowy123

Consensus exists that the United States and China are currently the world's two superpowers, as explained above by a clearly majority of editors. One commentator appears to believe that there is no exact definition of a "superpower" and insists on broadening the definition to include the EU, India, Russia, and at one point, the UK, on the basis that some articles and media outlets have at varying times referred to these countries/entities as superpowers. However, editors have pointed out the age and weakness of these sources compared to the strength of sources pointing to the US and China as the world's current superpowers, and disagree that there is genuine debate about this point in 2026.

Superpower discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Superpower)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute if the editors agree to my moderation and agree to follow DRN Rule A. The moderator will ask the questions and the editors will reply with their statements. I will preface this discussion by saying that the article must summarize what reliable sources say. If all reliable sources agree on a point, such as whether either the United States or China is a superpower, we will say so, but I don't think that all reliable sources agree. In that case, we should summarize what the majority and the minority (or minorities) of sources say, or that the sources are divided. So I will ask each editor, first, to agree that we are following DRN Rule A. Editors who do not agree to DRN Rule A are asked not to take part in the discussion. I am asking each editor, second, to state what they think summarizes the opinions of the sources.

The objective of this discussion is to agree to text that summarizes what the majority of sources say and that also reflects what any minorities of sources say. We will not be making any statements in wikivoice.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Superpower)

Zeroth statement by George Ho

• Before filing another DRN request, I stood by my viewpoint that China shouldn't be considered a "superpower" just because others said so. Too bad recent reliable sources verifying my concerns have become much harder to find. Indeed, majority of recent sources have deemed China a "superpower". How the US, China, and other big powers should be present remains to be seen by especially two editors who have largely expressed their own arguments about the powers, including (but not limited to) the US and China.

Meanwhile, I think I have almost nothing further to say until involved parties will have either made some compromises or realized that brainstorming for another RFC would be the best way to go. Well... That's that, so I'll be reading further comments on the sidelines then. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oh, and for the record, I'll abide to the DRN Rules A this time. Thus, I may participate... but very minimally as possible (per above). --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by GeogSage

Responding to the moderator:

1. I agree to follow DRN Rule A.
2. I have stated what I believe to summarize the current sources above, and the link is to a version of the page that mostly reflects how I think we should approach this topic. The only real universal consensus I have found between sources is that there is no formal definition or consensus for what makes a superpower. All sources about why ____ is or is not a superpower is the result of the author choosing a definition/criteria, conducting an analysis, and then offering their opinion. Yes, in the case of China and the U.S. there are very strong cases to be made for why they are superpowers, however, these claims are demonstrably WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. Thus, I created the category "Possible extant superpowers," and listed several examples that are commonly brought up in the literature (ones I could verify with sources). This gives room for the case for/against to be elaborated on. It seems cut and dry. One source in particular I'd like to point to is an article titled Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power , in which the author makes a compelling case for why they believe China is a superpower. Within this article it states:

   Today is no exception—after four decades of China's economic rise, scholars and policymakers dispute the nature of the emerging system. 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.

   This is one source in which the author believes China is a superpower, probably among the most favorable we have for that conclusion, and in it they acknowledge there is a divide among "scholars and policymakers." There are more sources, but this highlights how I believe the article must be framed in order to achieve NPOV. We can give the compelling case for why some people believe _____ to be a superpower, and balance it with the other nuanced opinions. In the case of China, we have books like China After Mao (book) by Frank Dikötter, which in a later interview on the topic with the Hoover Institute it states, "Dikötter contends that far from being a true superpower, China remains fundamentally fragile: an empire held together by repression, propaganda, and paranoia." We have an article in The Hill (newspaper) that states, "But China today falls far short of superpower standing." To be neutral, we can't pretend these opinions do not exist and state in Wikivoice that something IS a Superpower. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes and sources, I can get more if needed:

Source	Quote(s)
"In a world of global competition, the US and China are tied as superpowers with opinion divided on Russia". Survey Result / News Detail. Gallup International. Retrieved 27 July 2026.	When asked whether they consider the US to be a superpower in 2030, 61 % say yes while 24 % say no. Across all 37 countries, 63 % agree that China will be a superpower by 2030, with 97 % of respondents in China agreeing and 54 % of Americans accepting the fact that China will remain a superpower by 2030. Despite President Putin increasing Russia’s footprint across much of the world and building deeper relationships with non-Western blocs such beyond the EU/US, 41 % of all countries surveyed accept that they will remain a superpower by 2030, while 42 % saying they will not. Beyond these three countries there is nobody else competing seriously – even the potential might of the EU bloc is questioned with only 33 % saying they will be a superpower, 48 % saying they will not.
Munro, André. "superpower". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2 May 2023.	Some scholars argued that the term superpower no longer captured its unchallenged global primacy, and alternative terms such as hyperpower, global hegemon, and empire were suggested in its stead. Despite significant setbacks in its economy, military enterprises, and diplomatic influence in the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. remained the sole state with a clear preeminence in all sources of power. The question of American decline has been a common theme in the study of international relations. With the transformation of China into an economic powerhouse, there have been continued debates on whether it can be expected not only to dominate Asia but also to compete with the United States as another global superpower.
Kammerhofer, Jörg. "Superpowers and Great Powers". Oxford Public International Law. Retrieved 3 August 2026.	After the end of the Cold War (1947–91), the US became, for a while, the ‘sole surviving superpower’. At least as a measure of raw military power, this remains true, but there are several other contenders for (future) superpower-dom. If the European Union (‘EU’) were to match its foreign political potential to its economic power or if Russia could match its economic potential to its remaining military might, they could be considered superpowers. At present, however, for various reasons, no other State has superpower status and even the US is in danger of losing its status. Only China has a relatively clear path to superpower-dom in the medium term; it has been described as a ‘premature superpower’.
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 – via dergipark.org.tr.	The study argues that although the US power is in decline, it is still a superpower thanks to its allies, friends, economic tools like US dollar and even its adversaries. 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.
"U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say". University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2026.	The United States remains a formidable but besieged global power, according to the editors of “From Superpower to Besieged Global Power: Restoring World Order After the Failure of the Bush Doctrine” “The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower, which has used its material and human resources incompetently,” Kolodziej said. “According to this train of thinking, all that is needed is a better management of its soft and hard power to retain what is misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States.”
Magone, José M. (2026). "A new research agenda for the 'geopolitical' turn of the European Union". A Research Agenda for European Union Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 1–24. ISBN 9781035302499.	The rise of China to the status of an economic and military superpower must be considered a significant factor in this regard. The EU cannot develop a friendly but separate identity from the foreign and defence policy of the United States, and in the long run this could further undermine the Union's ambitions to be a superpower sui generis. To this end, the EU has additionally copied legislation developed in the United States, further Americanising its policies. The European Union is thus transforming into a ‘normal’ superpower fighting for its interests.
Schuman, Michael (5 October 2020). "What Happens When China Leads the World". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-04-09.	What kind of superpower will China be? That’s the question of the 21st century.
Lind, Jennifer (October 1, 2024). "Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power". International Security. 49 (2): 7–55. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00494. ISSN 0162-2889. Retrieved February 26, 2026.	Today is no exception—after four decades of China's economic rise, scholars and policymakers dispute the nature of the emerging system. 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. In fact, China is a superpower: one of the strongest countries in the world, with a large gap between it and the next most powerful state
Andrew Latham (2023-04-06), China: A great power but not a superpower	So, China is unquestionably a great power. But a superpower? No way.
Rahman, Ashiqur (2025). "The Digital Silk Road: a strategic initiative in China's multifaceted superpower quest". Asian Journal of Political Science. 33 (3): 529–549. doi:10.1080/02185377.2025.2489375.	China’s status as a superpower is a subject of debate. China has immense potential to become a fully fledged superpower. But it still faces several challenges in military, economic, technological and diplomatic spheres in reaching that status. To conclude, China's rise across military, economic, technological and diplomatic domains is evident, yet it still faces significant obstacles to becoming a fully fledged superpower. While the country has made tremendous progress, its challenges in economic management, military expansion and diplomatic relations suggest that China remains a potential superpower, rather than a fully established one. Therefore, while China's trajectory is promising, it must address these internal and external challenges to solidify its position as a true global superpower.
Pierret, Laura (2025). "Book Review: Superpower Europe: the European Union's silent revolution". International Affairs, p. 101 (2): 736. doi:10.1093/ia/iiaf023.	In "Superpower Europe," Marc De Vos discusses the transformation of the European Union in recent years, focusing on shifts in EU membership, the market, and state intervention in the economy. De Vos argues that the EU is evolving into a geostrategic superpower and a state project, partially federalizing in the process.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2010). "Europe, the Second Superpower". Current History. 109: 91–98. Retrieved 27 July 2026.	In fact, the world today has two global superpowers. One is the United States- the other is Europe. Europe is the only region in the world, besides the United States, able to exert global influence across the full spectrum of power, from "hard" to "soft." Europe is the only region, besides the United States, that projects intercontinental military power. And European countries possess a range of effective civilian instruments for projecting international influence that is unmatched by any country, even the United States.
Ng, Damien (2022). "Assess the Proposition That India Will Become the Next Superpower". Journal of Asian and African Studies. 58 (7). doi:10.1177/00219096221084255.	Based on the analysis conducted, this study argues that the South Asian country’s hopes of rising into the league of superpowers will ultimately be dashed if its advantageous conditions are weakened by an inability or unwillingness to address some of its most pressing problems.
Jach, Anna; Kużelewska, Elżbieta; Legucka, Agnieszka (2023). "Russia Military Aspects of the Functioning of a Superpower". The Russia-Ukraine War of 2022 (1 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781003341994. Retrieved 30 July 2026.	Russia sees itself as a superpower
Chance, Matthew (2026). "A key nuclear weapons treaty is ending. It's a sign of Russia's eroding superpower status". CNN. Retrieved 6 August 2026.	The breakup, back in 1991, of what US President Ronald Reagan once dubbed an “evil empire” left the Kremlin with less territory, less financial muscle and less influence around the globe. But Russia retained its clout in one crucial area. 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.At nuclear summits, the Kremlin’s leader could grandly sit across from the incumbent in the White House – just like in the glory days of the Cold War – to decide on matters of international security.
Johnson, Loch K. (2024). "Intelligence Collection Priorities in an Age of Renewed Superpower Conflict: Toward a More Expansive Perspective". The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare. 6 (3): 1–31. doi:10.21810/jicw.v6i3.6336.	Yet the topic continued to lack a sense of immediacy among NSC officials increasingly focused on superpower threats from China and Russia.
Avilov, Alexander (2019). "Russians' Belief in Country's Superpower Status Reaches 20-Year High – Poll". The Moscow Times. Retrieved 9 August 2026.	Overall, 75 percent of respondents said they believe Russia is a superpower. The number has climbed steadily over the past two decades, from a low of 30 percent in November 2005.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by PaulRKil

I agree to Rule A

I believe we need to consider age of the sources given. Anything prior to 2024 and certainly anything prior to COVID do not account for the major shifts we've seen in geopolitics and should be weighed with that in mind.

Contemporary scholarly assessments point to China and the United States being the two current Superpowers. The South Center in its 2025 journal Winds of Change Len Ishmael states the following

BRICS members have grown in stature on the global stage and the importance of the group has increased. China is a Superpower.

Similarly, Jennifer Lind in Back to Bipolarity: How China's Rise Transformed the Balance of Power (2024) explicitly puts forward that China is a supepower:

In fact, China is a superpower: one of the strongest countries in the world, with a large gap between it and the next most powerful state.

David A. Lake writes in The End of the Liberal International Order? Globalization, Deep Contestation, and the Future (2026) also states that China is a superpower.

As the LIO fades, we are in a new era of superpower competition between the USA and China, with Russia playing the role of spoiler and Europe standing on the sidelines.

With the exception of Winds of Change, these are peer reviewed academic journals. The South Center is an intergovernmental organization with 55 member states. This is a fraction of recent literature that states that China and the US are superpowers.

While there may be debate around what a superpower is, there is plenty of common consensus among researchers and academics about who is a superpower and each source gives reasons why China and the US country meets that criteria: by possessing an outsized economic, geopolitical, cultural, military, and technological power that far outpaces other nations. It is inappropriate not only for the article to not tell the reader which nations are commonly cited as superpowers, it is irresponsible for the article to also instead list the 5 nations in a single flattened category. PaulRKil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by 16dvnk

I agree to follow DRN Rule A.

I have not done my due research on this topic yet. Therefore, I will base my findings on GeogSage's sources.

With such a controversial and politically sensitive topic, I find that the latest sources should be weighted more importantly (WP:AGEMATTERS) in such political topics (China has changed a lot in recent years). In the sources, at least in GeogSage's subset, there is a disagreement if China is a superpower.

Upon my most minimal research on Google Scholar, I find that it is somewhat divided (but still a reasonable majority) that China is a superpower, and upon setting the timeframe from 2024 to 2026, nearly all sources claim that China is a superpower. While that is the only research I have done (which is not rigorous), I can see that at least in research papers, China is (somewhat) widely claimed to be a "superpower". I can also see that nearly all (papers from all timeframes) state that China is at least an "emerging" superpower.

Given the information I can find, with WP:AGEMATTERS in mind, it seems that we should show that a.) China's status is debated b.) The more accepted option is that China is a superpower. c.) Why the other sources do not claim China is a superpower

I will do more research in the near future if needed, but for now that is what I think summarizes the sources.

Sincerely, 16dvnk (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Superpower)

It seems that I forgot to say to be civil and concise, probably because all of the discussion on this topic has been civil, but these posts have not been concise. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts take longer to read than shorter posts and may or may not provide more useful information. My first question in this round for all editors is: What section or sections of the article do you want to revise? Be concise. We will then focus on the lede section if at least two editors want to discuss the lede section. Second, please either provide a one-paragraph summary of what you propose that the lede should say, or provide a proposed rewrite of the lede section. I don't want anything in between. Either give me a one-paragraph summary of your proposed changes to the lede section, or provide a proposed rewrite of the lede section.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Superpower)

First statement by George Ho

As said before, I don't intend to comment much. However, isn't the lead section supposed to introduce or summarize what the topic is about? Indeed, focusing on the lead first before the body wouldn't be wise, IMO, and wouldn't solve other potential article issues. In other words, why not concentrate on body before rewriting the lead? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

First statement by PaulRKil

I am primarily interested in upating "Potential superpowers" to two sections: Superpowers and Potential superpowers as reflected in my previous edit attempts where the United States and China are listed a Superpowers while the EU, Russia, and India are listed as potential superpowers. Overall, the article should reflect that there are countries widely cited as being superpowers and undo the false impression of parity between each listed nation. PaulRKil (talk)

First statement by GeogSage

Sorry, previous posts were not concise; the collapsible table is my attempt to be comprehensive, and I figured, as I'm likely the minority opinion here, I needed a pretty comprehensive justification.

On changes to the lede section: The table I included above is what I'm using to frame the lede. My proposed lede is current at the time of writing this, and I think it should more or less say this. It's not perfect, but it works. I have made some large changes to the body of the article, including creating and removing some, and the lede reflects these changes. The potential superpowers section is the most controversial, obviously, and the controversial lede changes revolve around how that section is approached. I believe that the sources demonstrated pretty clearly that the issue is WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, as many sources indicate that there is debate in the literature, so this is really the only working approach we can take if we start with the sources, use policy as a lens to view them, and draw a conclusion that respects all of them. This format is resilient; as new sources inevitably emerge, they can be added to the article, and we can elaborate on the various positions for each power without asserting these positions as fact in Wikivoice. That is my proposal for what the lede should say, why it should say that, as well as sections of the body. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

First-round statement by Aaron Liu

I accept .

My only proposal is we keep the paragraph split I just added to clarify the structure where it transitions towards talking about China. I think what we should say in the disputed last (two) paragraph(s) of the lede is the same issue as whether we should present China as a superpower or a potential superpower: after we find consensus on the lede, there shall be little to no dispute about the body. So that's where we should focus on.

What do I support? I think the current state is good. We're not saying that China's not a superpower, just that there isn't a consensus and tons of sources support it. It seems there are enough weighty sources that make it clear there isn't a consensus. If we want to evaluate this, I suggest we work on creating a much-simplified table (excluding news sources) with columns "Source", "Superpower?", and "Peer-reviewed?"—without quotes; we can dispute any table cells in organized DRN discussion. —20:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Superpower)

It has been called to my attention that the lede follows the body, so we should focus on changes to the body before we change the lede. I have a question before we go into working on the body of the article. DRN is normally a venue for relatively small content disputes. It has sometimes been said that disputes at DRN should be capable of resolution in two to three weeks. That may have been overly optimistic, but in general, in my opinion, disputes at DRN should be resolved in between two and six weeks. My question is really whether there are disagreements about specific sections of the article, or whether some of the editors think that sections of the article need to be rewritten. If some of the editors want to rewrite sections of the article, I don't know whether DRN is an appropriate venue for that purpose, although I don't know whether there is a different venue that has a better track record, or any track record at all, with the rewriting of articles.

So my next questions are intended to determine whether DRN is the right place, and what to try to do while we are still in DRN. First, what section of the article does each editor think is in the most need of rework? Second, what changes does each editor want to make to that section? If multiple editors can agree on one section that needs attention, then we can focus on reworking that section.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Superpower)

Second statement by GeogSage

• First question Answer: The disagreement, IMO, is on how to handle the countries listed, and isn't limited to a single section or the lede. Resolving how we handle this is the broad issue and isn't limited to a single section of the article. The sections I think need the most work are not related to this, and are the history section (specifically "Proposed early superpowers"), and the Superpower disengagement section. These are poorly sourced and might need serious trimming.
• Second question: The main change I'd like to make to the current version of the article at the time of writing is to trim out most of the content in "Proposed early superpowers," replacing bulleted lists with prose when sources verify the claims. From what I've been able to find, I believe much of the content in "Superpower disengagement" can be moved elsewhere and the section dissolved, but it needs sources at the very least. I've had a hard time finding ones that specifically use the term "superpower disengagement." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Second-round statement by Aaron Liu

I think it's a good idea to limit this DRN to just discuss the lede (whose contention is which countries are superpowers), followed by any issues about the congruence of the body with the lede that can be resolved in 2–6 weeks. For example, if we find consensus that US and China are superpowers, then I think we'd agree on RKil's suggestion to split out these two from the "Potential ..." section. —00:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Second-round statement by PaulRKil

1. I'm not sure how to proceed, I have never been a dispute that has been this deep. I think we continue it.

2. Bottom line again for me is how the countries are listed overall. I find no reason to flatten the article into "candidates" for superpowers when, again, the contemporary scholarly consensus does point to the US and China being the current Superpowers and the USSR and the British Empire being ones in the past. The Potential Superpowers section would be divided into Superpowers and Potential Superpowers. Having a Potential superpower article is useless if we are going to list each nation as a Potential superpower on Superpower. PaulRKil (talk)

Slovak Republic (1939-1945)

– New discussion.

Filed by ~2026-41091-89 on 11:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Slovak Republic (1939-1945) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)
• Dasomm (talk · contribs)
• buidhe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

To put it shortly, it is quite a baffling dispute. It all started over a sudden removal of the descriptor of the government type as fascist by Nikkimaria and all mentions of fascism were effectively scrubbed from the infobox without consensus, changed instead to a generic "one party state" label, despite multiple editors opposing the change in question and the descriptor being adequately sourced in later edits. Despite efforts on the talkpage to arrive at a compromise or explain how it does not violate neutrality or any other Wikipedia policy, the discussion eventually stalled and no one else contributed for well over a month asides from sparse comment from buidhe, and adding the content in question continues to be reverted like clockwork with a vague "per talk" edit summary that remains virtually unchanged no matter the response.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

As said earlier, efforts made to resolve the discussion on the talkpage:

Republic (1939-1945)#Government_type

but they went without any meaningful success, and I already tried to seek resolution from a third opinion, but got rejected since its way bigger than just 2 people, apparently and discussion drew to a stalemate.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Settle the issue over whether or not should the government of the WW2-era Slovak state be described as a fascist one party state and whether or not are the sources cited of sufficient quality to make said change stand in the infobox. We sadly failed to find any agreement on the talkpage, so I hope that this will provide some clarification for how should we proceed.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As discussed in the article, this characterization is disputed. Further reasons for deferring this claim to the article body are discussed on the talk page. If the TA is concerned that the parameter is too generic, I would support omitting it as an alternative.

Summary of dispute by ThecentreCZ

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Dasomm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by buidhe

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Slovak Republic (1939-1945) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.