Talk:Superpower

I know that a consensus was reached, but I have some suggestions. First, I think that China should be presented as an emerging or regional superpower, or perhaps non-hegemonic superpower. This would satisfy both the academic argument (A) and media/rhetoric argument (B). I found citations to back this up and added them, but they were taken down. I also take issue with potential non-objectivity regarding the United States, specifically declinist rhetoric which I feel may be politically charged. Here is a source I cited: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/bookshelf-china-may-not-be-a-superpower/ ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:OP-ED. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What Op Ed? ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The Hill and the NYT links you gave are op-eds. It says "opinion" right in the URL EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@ObjectivityCat9942 Sorry I meant WP:NEWSOPED EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah! What would the ASPI one be? ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I corrected my error ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"Regional superpower" is an oxymoron. For a super power to be super, it's power must extend beyond its region. Per the lede "A superpower is a sovereign state or supranational union that holds a dominant position characterized by the ability to exert influence and project power on a global scale." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hegemonic and non-hegemonic then, or perhaps full-spectrum and partial-spectrum. ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

These are all different models. The model we are using when we use the term "Superpower" is Power (international relations), and has various terms. The three big ones are Great power, Middle power, and Small power, but we also have the term Regional power. These terms aren't really well defined, and different people have different models, and place different countries in different categories. At this point, they are mostly pseudointellectual buzz words. In the model, the U.S. is currently a Superpower, and there are many Great powers that are challenging it in various regions. If the US is reduced to a Great power, that does not upgrade the other countries to Superpowers. The reason for the confusion with citations is that these buzz words are thrown around haphazardly by various organizations without thought, it is like seeing the term Nation-State used as a synonym for countries, just something people are peppering their writing with to sound smart. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe it would be most ideal to avoid op-ed or book reviews and stick with very authoritative academic papers (for example Foreign Affairs) and newspaper articles (for example NYT or WSJ).

We have already referenced numerous reliable sources that categorize China and the US as full-fledged superpowers. Here are a few more:

"If the U.S-Chinese relationship stabilizes as a result of the Trump-Xi summit, many countries would welcome the change, as they have been put in awkward positions and faced pressure to “choose” between Washington and Beijing in recent years. But even though they may find such stabilization reassuring, they will continue to hedge and guard their autonomy because they cannot trust either superpower." https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-squandering-golden-opportunity-david-shambaugh

"The U.S. president has publicly embraced the idea that China is the world’s only other superpower, suggesting that he and Xi could work together to resolve global issues." https://www.wsj.com/world/for-xi-iran-war-reinforces-view-of-u-s-as-dangerous-superpower-13a8fcd5?eafs_enabled=false

"The growing concern is that both countries will wield their expanding regulatory regimes as economic cudgels, dragging other nations and businesses into the fight. Business leaders and experts warn that the two superpowers are increasingly forcing the world to choose a side: China or the United States." https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/business/trump-xi-economic-warfare.html

It does seems that there is widespread consideration that the superpower term includes both the US and China. This is not just a minority view. Naturally, there will always be differing opinions even from established academics given recent developments. There are even minority views that emphasize US decline too. I think it is totally fair to include those reliable sources in the body of the text. ~2026-28094-16 (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Then why not present both sides of the arguments? The Foreign Affairs one does. Doing so would make the article seem less biased toward such things as declinism. I souls also admit I am very much in favor of citing academic arguments as opposed to official rhetoric, which is prone to using loaded words. ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Too early for a new debate on the topic and it is abundantly clear that most people in this field view China as a superpower, including the incumbent US Secretary of State. A lot of people's big holdup is the size of China's military footprint in comparison to the US which just isn't a good yardstick to measure power in the 21st Century. PaulRKil (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes the community isn't able to present things in a neutral manner. Removing scholarly academic publications (i.e Frank Dikötter) for passing mention of the term by a politician it's not providing our readers with an overall view of the topic. But these things happen, all we can do is hope academic editors take a closer look in the near future. It's hard to deal with multiple single purpose accounts. Moxy🍁 23:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Then what I want to know is why these edits weren't made 4-6 years ago. The timing just seems too perfect. And regarding holdups, nominal GDP, absolute soft power, formal alliances, and GDP per capita are cited alongside military footprint. ObjectivityCat9942 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

No it isn't.

Many people if not most don't consider China to be a superpower in the field of International Relations.

China's GDP per capita is lagging behind Turkey, its geography prevents it from acting as a superpower - The Himalayas create a natural balance with India, whereas the Taklamakan desert prevents the Chinese military from being able to freely invade (and expand into) Afghanistan, the Gobi deserts separates Mongolia from China and Siberia makes it impossible for China to expand north into Russia (at least militarily). China can only go eastward into the seas where it faces the US and Japan among others. China doesn't have a free reign on global stage, if it wanted to go to a war in the Middle East it would have to get the permission of the US since the US has a navy larger than 8 navies coming after it combined (8,2 million tones).

China is a great power but it ain't no superpower yet. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

China's GDP per capita is low, but their income is surprisingly elastic and less tied to paying household debt which gives them more buying power. And in regard to your point about its geography, similar things could be said about the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It came up against NATO in Europe and, by the middle of that era, China in the east and a solid bloc of US led nations in the pacific, not to mention the US itself in the arctic yet it still was able to project power on a global scale. I also think we are focusing too much on naval power, even at its most powerful, the Soviets had an inferior navy (aside from an impressive submarine fleet) largely due to its lack of port options due to its geography. Without sounding too crystal ball, China's shipbuilding capacity has increased substantially in this decade while the US has lagged significantly and need to rely on foreign workforces to remain competitive. China also competes with or outpaces the US in missile capability, drones, and AI depending on the study. Also China's substantial investments and nation building in Africa and other regions is greatly undersold in assessments of its soft power abilities. PaulRKil (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd also argue that Marco Rubio and, as of this week, Donald Trump himself referring to China as a superpower is significant. Rubio tinged his assessment by saying China cheated its way to superpower status but Trump simply said, "We're the two superpowers." I'm aware that this administration isn't good at being consistent in their language, but I think in this case it is a substantial development given this administration's traditional hawkishness toward China when they'd otherwise be incentivized to undersell China's capability to the world. That is exactly what Trump did in his first term where he'd typically say China was trying to become a superpower and replace the US. Now, in his second term, he is flatly stating China is one without attaching any kind of negative language or criticism to it. PaulRKil (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Donald Trump referred to Rosie O'Donnell as a "Fat pig", but this does not make her a member of Sus (genus). I think his opinion here is equally "sus," and would suggest that using words that both flatter China and make American's believe that China is a threat are the most likely reason for his word choice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You are missing my point about Soviet and Chinese geography. It's not about which countries surrounded it, it's about the physical barriers preventing it from projecting power.

It's not that India by itself balances China but rather that the Himalayas are impassible for either the Chinese or Indian military therefore establishing a natural balance of power. To the north it's not that Russia is stopping China but rather the fact that it's impossible to occupy Siberia due to its size and climate.

The point is: Soviet geography enabled it to invade the Western Europe, Middle East or East Asia. China lacks the ability to invade India (because Himalayas), Afghanistan (because Taklamakan Desert), the Middle East (because it's too far and its navy doesn't have the infrastructure nor would the US allow it) or Europe. China can only act in western Pacific. ~2026-30877-25 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I would simply ask is China interested in invading those countries to begin with? China's doctrine on how it wants to present itself to the world and showcase that it is a superpower is unlikely to be the type of military adventurism we saw of the US and USSR during the Cold War or trying to match the global dominance of the contemporary US military. I find it incredibly unlikely. PaulRKil (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

And that's what makes it a great power but not a superpower. The superpower has an interest in intervening anywhere in the world, a great power doesn't.

China is a great power in the classical sense (even if much stronger than other great powers) ~2026-30877-25 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with your narrow framing of what constitutes a superpower regarding invading other countries. Anyway Trump and senior US leaders/media/academics flat out call China a superpower without disclaimer so it's settled. That is not to say that China and the US are equal in power. Superpower status does not imply symmetry. The US always had the far superior economy to the Soviet Union in the Cold War. ~2026-30873-11 (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

they never called it a superpower, they call it peer competitor. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"Before US President Donald Trump departed the White House on Tuesday for an almost 14-hour flight to the Chinese capital, he outlined in plain English the importance of the visit. “We're the two superpowers,” he said unabashedly." https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/14/were-the-two-superpowers-so-where-is-europe ~2026-30873-11 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

China does intervene in affairs albeit not militarily. It mostly does it with its wallet and through diplomatic and economic coercion. They were able to pressure the entire EU when Lithuania tried to deepen its ties with Taiwan in 2021 which lead the EU to file a WTO case that they ultimately dropped when it was clear they weren’t going to get concessions from China.

It also successfully lead successful normalization efforts between the Saudis and Iran in 2023. Obviously, the current war erased this, but China did something the US was never able to do in a region that the US has dominated militarily for decades.

And there is also the Belt and Road initiative which has been discussed many times here. PaulRKil (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Without military there's no actual influence. China cannot enforce its interests ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The notion that military power is the only basis of global influence is simply facile.

China is currently having an enormous impact globally through economic scale alone, and there is widespread discussion - in the foreign policy establishments of both the US and Europe, among policymakers/legislators, in the media, and parts of civil society, about what this means and how we should respond. You can see debate over this playing out everywhere from the American CfR, ECFR, the FT and the Economist. I'm not picking isolated examples here from these outlets either, and I encourage you to survey their other output, which covers China overwhelmingly in these terms. You will find the same from a wide range of geopolitics think-tanks, policy organisations and "respected" broadsheets (all sources I should say I personally disagree with in viewing China as a threat in these terms, but nonetheless).

China is actively reshaping the energy architecture of the world through its renewables industry, and its EVs, capital goods and more are rapidly displacing established industrial titans even in their own markets. Across manufacturing as a whole, Europe is currently debating how European industry can survive at all. China's leverage over rare-earth minerals alone has repeatedly forced the US and Europe to the table, representing as it does a fundamental chokepoint for our entire militaries.

Military force may be the last arguement of kings, but China already has what is certainly the worlds second strongest military by a significant margin, and is having an enormous global influence without even needing to use it.

That this "RfC" is happening at all, given that we just had one, is questionable to me - but that anyone here is still of the view that there is any consensus among academics, experts, policymakers and commentators around the view that the US is the world's sole superpower at this moment in time is astounding. Gryfia (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What educated peoples end up reading. Moxy🍁 13:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. You make valid points for calling China an economic superpower which it certainly is but so were Germany and Japan. Japan was buying up real estate across the US, the Japanese industry was superior to the US and and Europe in many aspects in the 1980s, and Japan was called an economic superpower, yet in the end the liquidity trap and declining population stopped its rise in the 1990s and now it's declining in relative GDP rankings as well. There is a similar pattern in China - they used the same growth model (low interest rates + low income lvl) and now they're losing their leverage, also China's population is declining.

Besides the rise of another superpower won't be peaceful, the US won't allow it easily. The only way this is happening is if at some point in the future China actually challenges the US through military force.

The fact that China isn't interested in being a global military power means that it ain't interested in being a superpower. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I, personally, do not think that is a useful comparison, because neither Germany nor Japan had economies possessing the relative size that China's does, vis a vis the US, and nor did either possess anything close to the size and scale of China across any other fundamental metric (size, population, natural resources, etc) in relative or absolute terms.

However, I'm afraid we are falling into the same trap that this discussion on this page has repeatedly, which is to debate our own opinions on the subject. I'll admit that my post strayed into this too, but what is really relevant is not that those points are "mine", but that they are the views of experts and policymakers in geopolitics - and moreover, the views of American and European ones who do not have a national bias to talk up China (although, as mentioned, I would suggest that some have a bias towards a degree of alarmism).

While I am sure everyone here has strong views on the subject, and may well be engaged in discussions on it, as Wikipedia editors it is our responsibility to reflect the view of the world outside Wikipedia, not our own. We do this by discussion of which and what kind of sources represent it, on the basis of expertise, perspective, and relevance, and by then making editorial decisions about how to structure and incorporate them into a balanced reflection of such.

In this case, as I have highlighted, it is clear that, not only has reference to China as a superpower become common across the media, but furthermore the institutions and individuals which make and shape foreign policy in both the US and Europe are now routinely doing the same. The perspective that the US is the world's sole superpower, which certainly was in the past the dominant one, certainly is not anymore, and seems to be rapidly evaporating from the discourse.

What remains, however, is a debate on the definition of "superpower", and a great heterogeneity in how it is defined and what it represents. That this discourse would indeed be valuable to reflect more robustly in the article is, I think, also manifestly apparent. Gryfia (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

China's GDP as of 2026 is 64% of the US GDP. Japan's GDP in 1995 was 71% of the US GDP. In 1995 Japan's GDP relative to US was larger than what currently China's got (in relative terms*).

Also it isn't true that referencing China as a superpower is common across media, institutions and individuals. Stratfor does not reference China as a superpower, nor does Geopolitical Futures. Let me go ahead and give a personal example, the professor at my graduate program in Public Administration at a well regarded University in my country doesn't think that China is a superpower. In fact there are many people who don't agree that China is a superpower as of now - the reason we are having this discussion is that there is no consensus on the matter, and if there is not consensus then I don't think we should change the wording on wiki neither, China is a Great Power and that's it. It's GDP per capita is relatively low (the Soviet GDP per capita relative to the US was much much closer than what China currently has), it's got a declining population, and it lacks the military infrastructure to act as a truly global military force. It is dominant in its region but it is not a superpower on par with the US or comparable to what the Soviet Union was. ~2026-31210-89 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wiki is not based on personal anecdotes and opinions but reliable sources. Just survey most mainstream media and recent academic papers and you will see the term superpower applied. Is it universal? Of course not. But there are also some reliable sources which say that the US is no longer a superpower. Should we rely on those sources? ~2026-30873-11 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

No, Japan's GDP - after conversion to dollars at the contemporary exchange rate - produced a value that was 71% of the US GDP in 1995. Japan's actual GDP would be measured in yen, because that is the currency of exchange in Japan. What is called "nominal" GDP in dollars is converted for the sake of comparison, but is therefore heavily dependent on the prevailing exchange rate of the local currency to dollars. In 1995 the yen hit its strongest value ever in relation to the dollar, and if one converts it at that rate, it produced that value. If one converts the same number of yen to dollars by the exchange rate of 1996, however, it is suddenly only 61% of the US GDP. This is why "nominal" GDP is labelled such; because it is a nominal figure, and is why Japan's 1995 GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity was less than half that of the United States.

This is an unavoidable problem with nominal GDP, particularly with export-focused economies, such as Japan and China, for whom a lower currency value relative to others presents an advantage in international goods markets (that is, by taking advantage of local purchasing power being greater than international pricing). This is not to say that it is therefore irrelevant; one must use some means to compare the size of economies, but taking nominal GDP alone is going to result in significant distortions of this kind.

One again though, this is all just debating personal opinion, which is not meant to be of decisive substance here one way or another. The relevant territory here is how to reflect source weight, and here I see you cite Stratfor, Geopolitical Futures, and an unnamed professor you know personally. None of these are particularly credible.

First of all, unless you can substantiate the professor and their view in some form then it doesn't pass the lowest bar for citation, so we'll leave that aside.

As for Stratfor and Geopolitical Futures, both of these outfits were in fact set up by the same guy - George Friedman, who would be better described as a crank science fiction writer than a serious voice on this - or any other - topic. He is best known for claiming the ability to predict the future using his incredible "geopolitical" insight, despite his predictions repeatedly being wrong, including that both the EU and PRC would collapse (both of which he has incorrectly predicted multiple times in multiple timeframes).

Stratfor is marketed as a "strategic intelligence" firm trading off Friedman's mystic clairvoyancy, but in reality its work consists almost exclusively of PI skullduggery doing background research on activists for corporate clients. "Geopolitical Futures" on the other hand, Friedman's latest racket, is an overpriced blog where for the low low price of 400$ a year you can watch, read and listen to all George's latest forecasts, and even recieve a collection of inconsistent maps and graphics made out of templates in Inkscape.

The man, I'm afraid to say, is a huckster. The only work of his I might call insightful is The Intelligence Edge: How to Profit in the Information Age, because while there's nothing useful about what the "Intelligence Edge" is or how to acquire it, at least it tells you what he's really good at: Cashing in on pretending to be an expert. Gryfia (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest:

In International Relations, a superpower is a state with exceptionally high levels of global influence and the capacity to shape international outcomes across multiple regions and domains, including military, economic, technological, and diplomatic spheres.

The term is most commonly associated with the Cold War period, during which the United States and the Soviet Union were widely described as superpowers due to their global military reach, nuclear capabilities, and ability to project power across multiple continents.

There is no single universally accepted definition of superpower status, and contemporary usage varies across scholarly and policy literature. Some definitions emphasize broad multidimensional global influence, while others focus more narrowly on sustained global military power projection and strategic autonomy.

In contemporary discussions, the United States is most frequently described as the only state with fully global military reach and sustained expeditionary capability across all major regions. Other major powers, including the China and the Russia, are often characterized as great powers or emerging global powers, with debate persisting over whether their current capabilities meet the threshold for superpower status under different definitions. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with this as no one characterizes Russia as a superpower while plenty label China as one currently. Numerous reliable sources support this assertion as already discussed. Another very reputable source from today: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/g-2-reality ~2026-30873-11 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Stratfor is a reliable source that does not see China as a superpower.

Just as there are plenty of sources calling it a superpower there are numerous sources calling it a Great Power.

In fact the easiest way to check the mainstream view is to ask AI chatbots which also would mostly tell you that China is not a full superpower. Since they rely on public data and sources across the internet.

The US is the only true superpower right now. I'll put it this way: if a war broke out between China and the US, the US navy would rasily blockade China's coast and lead to China's bankruptcy (since 80-90% of international trade is done through the seas) and China can't inflict a similar damage to the United States short of triggering a nuclear war. ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You cannot seriously be using this fallacy given the current IR situation right now. If the US tries to blockade the Malacca Strait, Washington would immediately declare war on half of ASEAN with the Chinese immediately triangulating and blowing up the US Pacific Fleet being forced to blockade. Besides, blockading would have minimal impacts on the Chinese due to so many redundancies. Do you actually do your research? The Chinese can immediately cut off all access to refined REM, crater Guam, counterstrike US Pacific FOBs like Iran and dump their US treasuries, disrupting the global economy. The US can't even open up the Hormuz Strait and their FOBs are unable to survive total destruction by Iran, and you think US FOBs and naval facilities near China could survive any better? If the Iranians with their cheap flying doritos and sub-par ballistic missiles can mission kill CENTCOM's ability to project power, to the point that they are cannibalising INDOPACOM assets to cope from the onslaught, Washington ain't doing shite if they are dumb enough to do so with the country that has the industrial capacity to produce 1,000 cruise missiles per day if they feel like it. If the US can't even handle a mid-rate power of Iran even with local air superiority, they are not surviving against China who WILL contest the US on air and naval domains, with the added bonus of having the homefield advantage, are not logistically and militarily stretched thin and won't have to travel 8,500+ km for each sortie. The US OTOH, do, assuming their ships and FOB assets survive Chinese A2/AD ASBMs, cruise missiles, SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs and drones. Be for real here. Especially in the wake of 2026 exposing how acutely vulnerable US FOB assets and industrial power really are. 42Grunt (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The US fleet is 8.2 million tons strong, the Chinese fleet is 3,2 million tons strong which means the US ships are harder to sink (because bigger ships sink slower), can carry more troops and munitions not only than China but more than 8 largest navies after the United States combined.

China is no match for the US Navy.

The US would easily destroy the Chinese navy and then blockade the Chinese ports (they don't have to blockade the strait of Malacca).

About the air - the world's largest air force is the US air force, guess who is number two? The US Navy. Number 3 is Russia, while number 4 is the US Marines and Number 5 is the US Army.

In case of Iran it is not clear at all who is winning, the US destroyed the majority of Iranian infrastructure and have blockaded the Hormuz for Iran themselves. Iran lives by selling its oil through Hormuz - something it can't do right now, at some point Iran will have to come to an accommodation with the US, let's not use unfinished wars in our arguments. Besides the US killed Khomeini in a strike. The only reason Iran hasn't lost this war is that the US does not intend to put troops on the ground and occupy the country because while that would lead to an immediate victory (likely), that would be a loss long term cause it would be another never ending war like Afghanistan or Iraq. But operationally? the US is likely to win if they were willing to send troops in (which they won't.). Sam Wood Rp (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If the US Navy is so powerful, why are they currently not helping with the protection of ships through the Persian Gulf? Trying to compare fleet size means nothing when you are incapable of enforcing it. Especially when a third of America's navy is under maintenance whilst the other third is at dock. And right now? The US is incapable of enforcing its will on even Iran. You speak pretty confidently on the USN when they are currently suffering acute levels of mismanagement and procurement incompetence. If the bulk majority of the USN is docked away from the Persian Gulf due to fears of Iranian AShMs, they are NOT surviving a serious engagement with the PLA.

What Chinese ports? Across the world? Are you for real? The USN can't even properly blockade Iran. Where are your sources that indicate the US have the capability or the will to commit geopolitical and economic suicide. CENTCOM literally drained the US years of advanced munitions that won't be replaced anytime soon and you think Washington has the industrial capacity to play pirate across the globe? Right now? When nearly everyone is pissed off at the US? I have laid out a source that debunks the effects of the Malacca Strait and you are out here dabbling on some ridiculous cope that the US somehow has the capacity to "destroy" the PLAN when they can't even deal with the Iranians. In fact, this flies face against the US government itself who conceded that they will lose any conventional fight with China over Taiwan, and that was before Iran drained US stockpiles dry. If anything, trying to pull this stunt will give casus beli for every single US ally to kick out Americans from their FOBs. Washington ain't doing shit to Beijing, especially when the latter can turn off the REM taps and the US is literally running out of advanced munitions.

Said air force was also forced to scurry back to Cyprus and Romania after the Iranians obliterated a irreplaceable theatre-level AN/FPS-132 radar and a E-3 Sentry because the Iranians have rendered US FOBs in the region destroyed. This reeks of cope. Projection of air assets mean nothing if you don't have the runways to land on them.

I literally linked a source detailing that the US was only able to partially "destroy" three out of the 33 known Iranian missile sites. The majority of the damage sustained were schools, apartment buildings and a bridge that was promptly rebuilt in a few days. Meanwhile, by killing Khomenei, you ended up invalidating anti-regime Iranians and significantly boosting and consolidating the power of the IRGC. The war ended up giving Iran a substantial amount of geopolitical power by giving them de facto control over the Strait whilst making every American FOB cease to exist. Likewise, the blockade itself is meaningless as the US are blockading a country under sanctions for 45+ years, to say nothing on alternate land routes and access to the Caspian sea. The ones that will be hit hardest are the GCC and American allies in the Indo-Pacific like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. On the other hand, America has proven to be utterly impotent in opening up the Strait. The reason why the US refuses to put boots on the ground is because they simply lack the capacity to do so. Is not that they don't want to. They simply can't. Any other excuses are just that, excuses. The forces present is incapable of marching up a mountain fortress with a pop of over 90 million with a dedicated production of FPV drones. The Iran War is a strategic, operational and tactical defeat. The US literally accomplished nothing. They failed to do a proper regime change, they failed to take out Iran's nuclear enrichment, they failed to destroy the IRGC, they failed to even materially effect Iran's overall military like their SRBMs and they failed to protect the GCC from Iranian counterattacks. You look at the Iranians, they are NOT interested in entertaining the US from saving face. They are stalling, intentionally, to squeeze Trump in the mid-terms. This is a defeat. Period. And now we are looking at a very likely scenario of the US abdicating its entire presence from the Middle-East. There is NO military options that are good for the Americans. So this is cope to the next levels. 42Grunt (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, this recent adventurism into Iran has strengthened arguments on US power and prestige being diminished dramatically. Robert Kagan, one of the most neocons of neocons, have effectively stated that the US has took a irreversible hit to its hegemony.

Tom Nichols also agrees that Trump is pushing America into a geostrategic defeat.

Christopher Caldwell, a conservative, also admitted that US hegemony has made a severe miscalculation and stated that US military power is no longer the same as it was back in 1991.

Traditional US allies like Germany, pretty much publicly stated that Iran is humiliating and belt whipping Washington.

Likewise, GCC Members like Qatar now view US military power and hegemony is in a state of irrecoverable decline.

All of these articles aren't just mere perspective and opinions, but they are articles backed up by solid evidence on the ground. US global influence, especially in the kinetic domain, is being dismantled in real-time. We have Riyadh drafting a non-aggression pact with Iran due to how impotent American military power is. Europe is actively trying to divest itself from American military equipment. And so are the Canadians. By this point, given the recent showings of American capabilities, the need to uphold US military might as some barometer of power should be scrutinised. We seriously need to have a discussion on this, since folks are using American military bases as arguments to show off American superiority. But Iran has single-handedly showed the blueprints on how to render them impotent. That facade is gone, and no one can take this argument seriously. If a superpower can't even protect its main projection of power from a regional power and is likely to be forced to cede an entire region to said regional power. What does that say to America's military might? US hegemony has always been predicated on being the enforcer and guarantor of FON and free trade. That the US is now not only a disruptor to free trade but is exposed to be powerless against Iran does irreparable damage to US reputation and superpower status. To say nothing on Tehran invalidating and making another pillar of US power - its sanctions regime - impotent via exercising its chokehold on a quarter of global oil to gain economic favours. I cannot stress how paradigm shifting this is, if the US capitulates, which is increasingly likely by this point. 42Grunt (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

William Wohlforth - A Professor at Dartmouth University as well as Stephen Brooks another professor at Dartmouth both view China as a great power but lacking the capabilities of a superpower.

Thomas J. Christensen at Columbia University said that China is in a unique position to challenge the United States regionally but it is not a peer superpower - He specifically cites that China can't project global military might and lacks the global alliance network the United States has.

David Shambaugh - Holds a PhD from University of Michigan and his view that China is a "partial power" is widely taught across Ivy League schools - He argues that China is only an Economic Superpower (One-Dimensional Superpower), he says that to be a full superpower the country needs to possess global footprint across 4 domains: Economic, Military, Diplomatic and Cultural/soft power. He says China is limited in reach.

Avery Goldstein from the University of Pennsylvania also argues that because China's military reach is limited by the US bases and its allies around it it lacks the global power projection required to be a superpower.

Alastair Iain Johnston a Professor at Harvard University - He argues that China mostly integrated and worked within the existing frameworks of UN, WTO and IMF rather than creating a parallel superpower system, by operating within a system where the US still holds a structural veto power, China's behavior is more indicative of a highly influential great power trying to alter rules from within rather than a revisionist superpower capable of upending global order.

China lacks the propriety tech dominance the US holds, they more often manufacture US goods rather than making their own.

It's geography limits it as pointed out above it is surrounded by powerful US allies and US bases as well mountains and deserts limiting its military reach (such as Himalayas or Taklamakan).

True superpowers can fight wars anywhere at any time, China single overseas military base (Djibuti) cannot compare to the hundreds of US military bases worldwide.

Besides China doesn't challenge the US led global order but rather tries to create space for itself within it. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

One must be carefully about citing articles that are 10 years old given how drastically the world has changed since then such as (William Wohlforth): https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/rise-and-fall-great-powers-twenty-first-century-chinas-rise-and-fate-americas-global.

The Wikipedia article already describes in detail China's potential limitations relative to the US. That is not to say that it is not a superpower when it can directly challenge the US in so many ways in a way no other country can for the foreseeable future. Most leaders including in Asia agree (as of yesterday!): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/world/asia/vietnam-to-lam-shangri-la-dialogue.html

Simply put if world leaders treat China as a superpower then it is one! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ~2026-32151-10 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Not true. Politicians often lie.

Vladimir Putin in 2017 said that the United States is the only superpower and that isn't questioning that.

China can only rival the US in one way and that is economic influence, but that's not that different from Japan in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact Japan's economy relative to the US was larger than what China has today. Albeit Japan wasn't as assertive, but that's a policy choice.

In fact Japan was widely considered an economic superpower in the 1980s. Yet there ain't much talk about it now. A similar thing could happen to China, maybe 20 years from now we'll be talking about India as a rival to the US or somebody else.

Let's see China have a global military footprint and then we'll talk about it being a superpower in the proper sense of the word.

Japan looked like a duck (70% of the US GDP), was swimming like a duck (it was building a large navy in the 1980s!), and quacked liked a duck (everybody expected it to bury the United States.) and yet it turned out its economic superpower status wasn't a longstanding one. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

As much as I love political speculation Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. The term "superpower" is used without much consideration throughout citations by people who have no idea of what makes a superpower super. The literature is a mess, and it isn't our job to analyze countries to determine what their status actually is, but to discuss what reliable sources say about them. Ideally, find a source that summarizes multiple sources in a systematic review. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't credibly bring up Japan or India in the same conversation as China. One is a US ally/vassal which had no hope of ever exerting any real leverage on the US. The other is incredibly poor and has multiple internal and external problems, which will prevent it from exerting substantial power for at least the medium-long term. If Putin said that the US is the only superpower in 2017, that might be credible but we are living in 2026 not 2017. Someone should ask Putin now. Or better yet go to any newspaper of record and search "superpower" and see what countries get named within the last year without any qualification of just economic, tech, or military superpower just "superpower". Now, I also agree if this happens to change in the future and China loses its economic power (if you believe that) then leading officials and academics will articulate that, which we would be able to cite here. ~2026-32151-10 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Sam Wood Rp has made unilateral edits to introduce new facts on the US military bases and navy without obtaining consensus first. I believe we should revert to the version before his recent edits unless there is consensus going forward. Funnily even here, China ALREADY has a larger hull count than the US Navy although the US has more displacement tonnage due to more aircraft carriers. ~2026-32151-10 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed although official rhetoric, if consistent and representative, is also valuable. Here we have Trump explicitly saying China is a superpower today and according to him the Group of Two (G2) will be meeting tomorrow. I don't have issue with the lede but I do believe that the text of the body can be optimized in the potential superpower section. The mention of the "2012 Cornell University - Lund Critical Debate" does not seem particularly exceptional. ~2026-28094-16 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Cornell thing is a little bit dated...but it gives our readers a time frame of how recent the academic debate actually started. Very much an ongoing debate in the academic community despite the media and political rhetoric sources used in the article now. Moxy🍁 23:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

US President Trump has visited China and proposed a Group of Two (G2) which basically solidfies China as a peer equal Superpower to US. When the leader of the US superpower puts China on equal footing , and most sources also cite China as a superpower, then it's pretty clear consensus. Rwat128 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone calling another country a superpower does not make it a superpower. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but that comment is not very helpful given that the term superpower is social construct, the only thing that makes a country a superpower is some people calling that country a superpower. But I do agree with the underlying point that a more or less random comment of Trump does not make something a truth, not even a socially constructed truth without broader consensus it is so. Arnoutf (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. If numerous authorities currently describe China as a superpower using the formal definition then it makes it one! These means infinitely more than biased assertions by users such as SamWood saying military counts for everything. Could someone please revert or protect this page from his unilateral edits?

This was published recently from a scholar and could be used as a reliable source:

"China’s status as the world’s second superpower is also, paradoxically, abetting its ability to accrue advantages without taking on the responsibilities—and expenses—that have sapped both the U.S. government of materiel and the American population’s appetite for big and bold foreign policy initiatives."

"China, meanwhile, currently derives several distinct advantages from its status as the second superpower."

"China’s status as the second superpower also allows it to benefit from the soft leniency of low expectations."

"This reluctance has become increasingly farcical as China’s hard power has grown to Hulk-like proportions, but it reflects China’s calculation that as the second superpower, it can and must husband its influence carefully."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/us-chinese-relations/false-promise-us-china-stability ~2026-35992-18 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

cinz is not a scholar.

By definition given by the two people who came up with the term "superpower" - William T.R Fox and Nicholas Spykman - superpower must posses the economy capable of sustaining global warfare and should have the military ability to engage in warfare worldwide. Military is key determining factor in both Fox's and Spykman's definitions. ~2026-36441-69 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

We should stick to definitions given by the two people who came up with the term Superpower - William T.R Fox and Nicholas J. Spykman. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there should be a section called "Military superpower", which I believe Sam Wood Rp added. Otherwise, we would could have sections called "Economic superpower", "Political superpower", "Trade superpower", "Energy superpower", "Manufacturing superpower", "Tech superpower", "AI superpower", etc etc. I proposed that this content be merged into the rest of the article. ~2026-33145-91 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, based on how the term has evolved over time, we probably COULD stand to have those, maybe as subsections under a main section with some snappy title like "Categorical superpowers." Probably not that, but something like it. I think Soft power super power could be a major sub-section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to include all these subheadings as we could then have an endless list of subheadings. Could someone merge the military superpower text into the appropriate section please? I don't have an account. ~2026-33145-91 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It has also be heavily rewritten as a Wikipedia article is cited along with a YouTube video which doesn't pass the standard. I do agree that having a strong military is part of superpower status. ~2026-33119-58 (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't agree that having a strong military, the traditional method for projecting hard power, is important to what it means for a country being classified as a superpower? Noted. Source? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I DO agree that having a strong military is part of superpower status. I DON'T agree that a Wikipedia article and YouTube video should be cited. ~2026-33119-58 (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right the citations should be removed. I don't think that we should remove the section, I think we should add several similar ones such as economic super power, political superpower, and most importantly softpower superpower. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That invites the article becoming a largely useless soup of alleged superpower definitions that are based on opinion instead of quality research. PaulRKil (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple terms that are pretty prevalent in the literature that specify a type of superpower. The three most noteworthy in my opinion are military superpower, economic superpower, and followed by soft power superpower. This is easily verifiable, and the article should reflect this. The "definition" of a superpower is almost entirely opinion, not some kind of quantitative research metric.

Specifies multiple types of superpower

• Deadly exceptionalisms, or, would you rather be crushed by a moral superpower or a military superpower?: Peer-reviewed publication. Source refers to terms "military superpower," " economic," and "cultural" superpower.
• The USA: Challenges of the Superpower: Journal. Uses terms "economic, financial, military and political superpower."

Military superpower

• Is China the Next Superpower?: Peer-reviewed publication. Source uses term "military superpower."
• Will China become a military space superpower?: Peer-reviewed publication. Term "Military space superpower" obviously used.
• The once and future superpower: Academic publication. Term "Military superpower" used.
• Military Aspects of the Functioning of a Superpower: Book chapter publication. Discusses Russia's status as a superpower being almost entirely due to military power.
• The Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower: Book. Term "Military superpower" used.
• China as an Economic and Military Superpower: A Dangerous Combination?: U.S. Military Technical Report that uses terms economic and military superpower.
• India: the next superpower?: the military dimensions of India's rise: Technical report from London School of Economics and Political Science using term "military superpower."

Economic superpower

• China, an Economic Superpower: “Out of Many, One?”: Peer reviewed publication.
• Japan: An economic superpower. Published by Pakistan Institute of International Affairs
• Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status. Book
• China's Growth: The Making of an Economic Superpower. Book

Softpower superpower

Soft power superpower is a term that is used quite a bit in grey literature and non-academic sources. Quick Google search can confirm this.

• South Korea's Security Beyond the Peninsula: Book chapter. Discusses South Korea as a "Softpower superpower."

Energy superpower

• Russia as an Energy Superpower: Peer reviewed publication.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The military superpower section should be removed entirely. PaulRKil (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

let's do our best not to give readers information and sources they can research.... Again you're doing great lol. Moxy🍁 22:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is mistyped, sarcasm, or I'm failing to understand, but I have provided in this talk page several sources of varying types (still need to fully screen them for quality, but I think they are mostly reliable. Not sure about the books, and Pakistan Institute of International Affairs) and there should be more then enough sources to get content related to "types" of superpowers added. Initial problem with the military superpower section was specifically the citations, so I was working on compiling some better ones before its removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we look at our own introduction of this article "This is done through the combined means of economic, military, technological, political, and cultural strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence". So each and any superpower would imply the state requires a combined economic, military, technological, political, cultural, diplomatic and soft power great power (perhaps even a superpower). So you cannot be a military superpower without also projecting diplomatic and soft power greatness as the definition superpower demands all dimensions to be present. And that seems basically the position of your 2nd reference from 2012: USA challenges of a superpower aligns with (and it is outdated anyway as 2012 was another era in US, Russian and Chinese history).

In my view we might at best consider which emphasis a superpowers has on these dimensions - US Economic, Military, Technological, Cultural (and decreasingly diplomatic and soft), China: Economic, increasingly Military, Technological, Diplomatic and Soft, limited Cultural (but also increasing), South Korea ?? Really a soft power superpower (seems rather speculative)? Japan economic - yes that was the perception in 1985 - since then its economy has stagnated, Russia an energy superpower - yes in 2008 perhaps when they could still export to the rest of Europe and renewable energy was a marginal part of the mix.

So in summary the implied redefinition of superpower that you can be a superpower based on being great in only one of the essential superpower elements, and the sources are not convining to me Arnoutf (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we look at the sources, there are several examples I've provided that refer to superpowers in specific domains. Literature referring to a country as a specific type of super power in the past for things that today have changed does not change that when the conditions were what they were, it was called a "________ superpower." This is not an isolated thing within a single source, or type of source, and spans decades. There is no reason we can't include a section on this, and can even mention that sometimes it is used to emphasize the domain an entity is most influential in, used as hyperbole, or used in a context to refer to an otherwise middle or great power that punches above its weight in a single domain. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Then the fact that the Catholic Church has 1.4 billion members, that makes Vatican City a religious superpower simply because it punches above its weight because it holds massive authority among its large base of believers. I simply do not see how adding these sub-definitions add value to the article. PaulRKil (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a source that uses the term "religious superpower?" GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I do have a source that lists United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, China and Spain as cultural superpowers. So following previous rationales it is unavoidable the countries named there which are not already listed must be added to this article (https://simplicable.com/new/cultural-superpower). But that would open up an almost endless addition of partial superpower countries (Nepal as mountain superpower, Netherlands as clog superpower). Let's not go there. Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

We could create a section titled "Domain superpowers." Find specific areas that are recurring in the literature (military superpower, energy superpower, etc.) and then make sub-sections for those. Within those sections, we can mention specific countries mentioned within sources. "Cultural superpower" and "Religious superpower" could probably both be thrown into a single "Softpower superpower" category. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Let us not go there as the list would devolve into endless trivia of some source calling some country some kind of superpower (e.g. with some effort I should be able to find sources that metaphorically refer to the Netherlands as windmill, tulip, Delftware, Gouda cheese, waterworks and clog superpower and that would require 6 additional sections for a small country....). Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think the focus of the article should be on comprehensive superpower status otherwise it becomes too unwieldy with many smaller so called domain "superpowers" like South Korea. I agree that soft power as coined by Joseph Nye can play a small role in superpower status although hard power is much more important as it can be used to compel or coerce other countries. ~2026-34787-58 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Categorically, it can be broken down into the most common uses of the terms. I know military superpower is extremely common, as is economic superpower, and energy superpower. These are used widely in the literature, the resistance to employing easily verifiable terms to the article actively impedes its coverage. If a section gets to large, it can be spun into a new article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope you realise that the phrase "most common uses" is very subjective. When does something become more or less common? How many sources from how many countries make something common? What quality of sources? What type of sources (academic analyses, policy papers, newspapers, websites, blogposts)? I foresee endless discussion of additional partial superpowers to be added. And if we look at the definition of superpower - global projection of military, technological, political, and cultural strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, we can (and already do for India and EU) discuss countries with "partial" superpower status as potential (comprehensive) superpowers. I do not see a need to create partial superpower sections for the reasons I mentioned before (but some of the content of military superpower may be merged here). Arnoutf (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We aren't doing analysis, we are digesting reliable sources. I've provided several sources above, for multiple "partial" superpowers. Language changes, and the term "superpower" never had a solid universal definition. We are ignoring a large volume of reliable sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We are and will be ignoring sources as there maybe several dozens of partial superpowers named in sources. My concern with the proposal to include full sections (which is part of the proposal discussed here) on partial superpower mentions, possibly used merely metaphorically, is not the lack of reliable (or contemporary) sourcing of good quality, but that we end up with an indiscriminate overview of many sources calling many countries a partial superpower on many dimensions (e.g. aforementioned Netherlands as clog superpower). If we want to go for partial superpower section, I would suggest there is substantial high quality relevant peer reviewed academic (e.g. political scientists, not chemists) secondary (i.e. review or similar not single mention in an introduction or position paper) recent (indeed language changes) discussion that underlines the relevance of the superpower dimension. None of the sources you list fully meets that (agreeably very strict) level. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

These proposals are frankly outside of the scope of the article and appear to be ways to try and delegitimize the contemporary claims that the United States is no longer the sole superpower. PaulRKil (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Would like to point out that these factor-specific "powers" are already discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(international_relations)#Other_categories ~2026-35992-18 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bring me a rock GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Military superpower is the most classic version of the term. The term superpower was initially used for military power not for cultural, economic or other types of influence.

Say Kenya decided to nationalize Chinese investments tomorrow, can Chinese military invade it or punish it anyhow? No, can the US? Yes. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure whether this fits the current thread. In any case this included a bold claim that the term originally was used exclusively for military superpower - which is not what the sources we quote in the lede say, so we need good sources about that claim. And if military is indeed the sole definition, than it makes little sense to make subsection as military superpower becomes largely synonymous to superpower. Arnoutf (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This comment, and your additions to this page is original research. At no point has a Superpower been defined using your standards because no superpower past or present can meet such a definition. By using your own Kenya scenario (i.e. be able to successfully invade a country), the British empire wasn’t a military superpower in 1842 because it failed to defeat Afghanistan. The USSR wasn’t a military superpower for the same reason 140 years later. The USA is not a military superpower because it failed to defeat Iran a few days ago.

And on the subject of Iran, are they now a “territorial superpower” or an “oil superpower” because of the on/off switch that they now have for the Strait of Hormuz? This whole discussion is out of the scope of the article and should not be added. PaulRKil (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course the British Empire was not a superpower in 1842. By your definition we had superpowers since times immemorial.

Superpower as a term appeared after WW2 specifically because the classic "Great Power" term didn't quiet capture the power of the Soviet Union and the United States the only two countries in history capable of military action on a global scale.

My argument isn't about the ability to defeat a country, but to intervene on a global scale. The US lost in Vietnam yet it was able to intervene there.

Superpower by definition (stated in this Wikipedia article in the part about the origins of the term coined by Nicholas Spykman and William T.R. Fox) is a country (or a union) capable of acting militarily on a global scale.

In the 1980s Japan was called an "economic superpower" because it was growing so fast that by the early 1990s its GDP per capita exceeded the United States. "Economic superpower" is an often used term.

Since many people seem to point to China as a superpower mostly because of its economic size (and therefore influence) I thought the middle ground would be to distinguish between a military superpower and an economic superpower, for the latter China qualifies no doubt as did Japan back in the day, as for the first one - China lacks the global scale military power.

By William T.R. Fox's definition a superpower is a country with Global Mobility (not just defending its own borders but possessing the logistical, naval and military capability to project and enforce its political will anywhere in the world simultaneously), that no crisis could be solved without their involvement and that their forces were efficient.

If we go to Nicholas Spykman's definition (the guy who actually came up with the term Superpower first) in his book the "Geography of the Peace" he lists: an economy capable of sustaining a total global warfare and the operational capacity to project both overwhelming land power and global naval dominance.

So as defined by the first two people to coin the term, a superpower means a country capable of military action on a global scale. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you oversimplify (I admit not being familiar with the details of the sources) as Fox's definition includes political power not merely military, and Spykman's (who died before the war ended and befor the term was coined) include economic power. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It is certainly oversimplified and your points about Fox is correct. Again, if "capable of military action on a global scale" is the sole definition, then the United Kingdom was a superpower in the 1980s because it was able to conduct military action against Argentina. Also what qualifies as "military action" to the user? That could range from major theatre operations or smaller roles with limited combat in support of another faction. Because currently Russia is conducting military action in the Sahel and was formerly in Syria. Is France a superpower for doing independent operations against Isis in the middle east since 2014? Nobody would argue that any of these nations are a superpower based on these examples. PaulRKil (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough let me clarify. Global scale military action means the ability to engage in conventional warfare(iraq war, afghanistan etc) anywhere in the world.

Fox does not list political power and global military mobility as two separate criterias, instead he says all of these factors must be present not just one. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The definition that Fox gave came in the waning days of WW2 and applied to the USSR, the US, and the UK at a time when their entire society was militarized for the war effort. While Fox’s initial definition is useful we need to also note that warfare, geopolitics, and how nations can utilize power has changed drastically since that time.

And while you may believe that China cannot conduct military action on a global scale, we don’t have good examples of conflicts to base that on. China has not engaged in a conflict since 1979 and China’s main military focus has been on Taiwan which is 30 miles off its eastern coast. Additionally, China’s primary adversaries are its own neighbors and it routinely projects power against them. Additionally, China has the largest military in total manpower, the largest navy in total hulls, the second largest military budget, and is in a better position to continue to expand than the United States is. As myself and others have mentioned in the past, China uses economic leverage and trade to pressure others. China’s policy in international dealings is not to use its military because it can project power by being the largest manufacturer in the world.

Definitions change. If we were to use the original definition of genocide from Raphael Lemkin, we’d be including mass murders of political opponents and different social classes as genocide as well, but we apply the term to traits such as race, religion, nationality, etc. because the definition has evolved over time since it was initially defined. Similar evolution has occurred with what defines a superpower. PaulRKil (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's the point. China Is Unable to Conduct Military Action on a global scale. That is a fact uttered by Xi Jinping himself back in 2017 when he said "China will be a world class military power by 2040" meaning China wasn't one as of 2017 according to its leader.

China lacks the worldwide web of military bases and alliances allowing it to project its military power far from home.

Having largest navy in total hulls doesn't really mean much, North Korea has largest navy in total number of ships. In the navy you look at the tonnage not the number of ships or hulls. The bigger the ship the more troops, supplies, fuel, bullets and missiles you can bring to the battle - The US has a navy larger than the 8 countries after it combined.

It is true that China has second largest military budget but it is not comparable to the US which has a defense budget larger than 9 countries after it combined (including China).

China is not "in a better position to expand" - first of all, in what sense? In the sense of total manpower? China's population is declining while the US' is rising. In terms of military action? No, Himalayas to China's south east create a natural balance of power with India, the mountains, rivers and jungles of Indochina prevented the Chinese military from successfully invading Vietnam in 1979.

Economic leverage is limited. The US economic leverage far outstrips China - The US is the largest market in the world, you can't sell to the US - you are broke. Besides dollar is the world trade's currency, Yuan is not usable as a trade currency.

Definitions do not change. China lacks the ability to act as a global power which means it is not a superpower. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You are rambling a making problematic claims at several points. Definitions DO change for example the definition of attitude (originally posture) has changed to position (in satellite work) and to general opinion (in psychology). While the US is the largest market it also has an insanely large national debt which is only sustainable as long as the dollar remains the global currency. As is now, dollar is slowly losing its position but explicitly challenging its position would lead to global economic collapse (which nobody wants) and leaving the US with no other options that going for a colonial war to suppress others. While China's population is declining it is about three times as big as that of the US, and through investments in the global south China is creating a lot of political, soft and economic power (while at the same time the current US government is destroying these US power at an unparalleled speed). Indeed having a major tonnage was yesteryears idea of a dominant navy, but given asymmetric warfare this has not been validated recently. Ukraine has destroyed incredible tonnages of Russian navy with very little fleet of its own. The huge aircraft carriers are nowadays considered extremely vulnerable and possibly nearing being outdated (as battleships became in WWII). And not importantly, US (and Russia) are failing with all their supposed military might against supposedly minor enemies - running through essential supplies, while China in the absence of armed conflict keeps building up its military. So in short, few facts, mostly opinions in your post above. (and mind you, I would prefer you would be right, but that is just not how it is). Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The dollar is not losing its position as the dominant world currency as long as the US continues to guarantee international shipping. There is a simple reason for that: No other country (or coalition) can guarantee international shipping in every ocean and sea in the world. If yuan or euro becomes dominant international currency what happens when a country blocks the flow of international trade say in the Mediterranean? Can Chinese navy protect the shipping there? No, can the US? absolutely. Why? Because of a network of allies and military bases in the region along with the largest navy and air force in the world.

The US failed against Iran for two reasons 1) It was dragged into a war by a third country and 2) it had no intention of sending in the ground troops to occupy it. Aircraft carriers are not considered outdated. The US didn't lose in a battle against Iran it lost because it wouldn't go all the way to win the war - it did not intend to occupy Iran. China lacks the military capable of merely engaging in a similar conflict with Iran.

The US engaged and lost, China couldn't even engage in such a conflict (not an opinion - China does not have the airbases, allies and enough aircraft carriers to wage a war on a scale the US did in Iran)

Again you are speaking of China as if it had a defense industry comparable to the United States. Ukraine fights Russia with American guns. The US has a defense budget that is larger than 9 countries with largest defense budgets coming after it (including China) combined. The US still has #1, #2, #4 and #5 largest air forces in the world. And its navy is larger than 8 countries with largest navies combined. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Plus I forgot but you are missing the point in population decline. The problem is not that China has fewer people, the problem is that population decline leads to economy slowing down (as labor pool shrinks and innovation stalls while internal market shrinks and the ratio of manpower to elderly population gets smaller thus creating an additional financial burden with more money spent on elderly care, as for the military China ends up with a relatively smaller ratio of manpower to retirees which makes it more difficult for it to recruit). Sam Wood Rp (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a discussion about creating or merging sections for Military Superpower. It has expanded (by me) to discuss other sub-types of superpower in the literature. Why is the RfC about China leaking here? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The demographic is speculative at best given the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence is revolutionizing per capita productivity. It's highly disingenuous to not account for robotics and AI in future economic projections. Less humans doesn't linearly translate to less economic output if one accounts for AI and automation. Rwat128 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Here’s an instance.

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

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

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

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

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

contrary to the consensus that was built prior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my proposed RFC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

I like GeogSage's suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment,

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

A: China is a superpower.

B: China is only an emerging superpower.

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

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

That is my proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For now, let us hold a short consensus:

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

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

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

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

Option E: TBD

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any questions? What do you guys think?

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

Sincerely,

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

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

P.S.

Correction:

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

Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Good luck to the future of the article.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I have re-read the entire history.

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

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

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

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

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

  Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Once again, the best to this article.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholarly journals referring China and the US as "superpowers"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. All the best to this article!

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

I disagree here. Let me attempt to explain why:

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

But that's not we are doing here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

This is how I would write it for conciseness:

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment,

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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