Talk:Clanker

Emerging trend using Clanker as anti-AI term

I've seen a trend online where people use the term "Clanker" as a derogatory term for generative AI or automated content in general. It's been mentioned in several news articles lately, would this warrant a new article about the term specifically? The target page of the redirect (Droid (Star Wars)) doesn't mention the word at all. There is a wiktionary page on this word, not sure if there should also be an article here. CrazyCat138 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree that the big rush of news articles describing the term's use outside of the Star Wars context justifies a stand-alone article, so I have gone ahead with converting the redirect. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that clanker has gained popularity as a slur for robots, adapted from the Star Wars franchise?

• Source: "'Clanker,' a word that traces back to a Star Wars video game, has emerged in recent weeks as the internet’s favorite epithet for any kind of technology looking to replace humans." (link)

• • Reviewed:

Created by ViridianPenguin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: All good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: As listed above, I am not required to complete a QPQ because I have fewer than five past nominations. Are you therefore good to approve the hook? Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@ViridianPenguin:, didn't see that, pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment - The page is currently at AFD so this hook should be put on hold until that discussion finishes. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just edited the article to give the origin of the term, which predates Star Wars, so I think the hook will have to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: The information you added was incorrect. "There Are Robots Among Us" is a nonfiction article about the history of robots in film, and the term is not used in a pejorative sense or as a slur in that article. Additionally, it is WP:OR to connect it to the modern term or its definition as a pejorative. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

The source I used is an RS (details on request but it is run by Jesse Sheidlower, who is a professional lexicographer) and has multiple citations of the word prior to the use in Star Wars, at least some of which are in fiction. (I see you left the mention of Tenn's usage in the lead; was that intentional?). I think the article needs to make it clear that the usage in Star Wars is not the first, or else someone needs to demonstrate that every one of those citations is not the slur usage, which seems unlikely given that that's the definition given by that source. I don't know much about DYK, so I'll leave it up to the reviewer to decide if they need to wait till the discussion is resolved to approve the hook. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanker has been closed today as keep. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, I think there are still some problems left after the most recent edits. I'll list some suggested edits below.

• I think we need to mention in the lead that the term was coined long before Star Wars. I would just say "Clanker is a slur for robots; the term was coined by William Tenn in 1958. It was used in the Star Wars franchise, first appearing there in the 2005 video game ...". Tenn's term is uncomplimentary and since we have an RS that asserts that's the slur usage I think we need to go with that.
• I don't think we can say "adapted" for Star Wars; it was an existing part of sf vocabulary and we can't tell if the writers coined it independently or had read sf that used the word and picked it up.
• Similarly we can't say "occasionally" in the first sentence of the body -- we don't have a source that says it was rarely or frequently or occasionally used. The sfdictionary.com source doesn't list every usage of the words it defines; just enough to show the usage of the term over term. Those might be the only uses of "clanker", or it might have been used thousands of times.
• "The term did not become popular as a pejorative until its use in the Star Wars franchise." The two cited sources say the term did not become popular until very recently, and one specifically makes the point that it's a 20-year-old Star Wars word that is only now becoming popular in another context. So I think this has to be rephrased. Star Wars neither introduced the term nor made it popular, though no doubt the sources are right to say that's where the current usage is drawn from. A side note is that we can't rely on these sources for the popularity of the term prior to 2005, since they weren't aware it was in use in sf, but since the term clearly has become much more popular very recently I don't think that matters.

I'd like to go ahead with these changes but will wait for your comments. I'll also drop a note at the sf project in case anyone there wants to chime in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's incorporation of the sfdictionary source is already best. All sources except this one refer to clanker as coming from the Star Wars franchise, and the prior usage captured by sfdictionary does not demonstrate the clearly derogatory meaning that it holds in Star Wars media. In the absence of clarity on whether Star Wars writers independently coined "clanker" as a slur or adapted it from earlier science fiction vocabulary, adherence to the sources would clearly justify mentioning Star Wars: Republic Commando as the pejorative's primary source in the lead, while leaving prior use to the first sentence of the body. Nonetheless, I have replaced "occasionally" with "previously," as you are correct that sfdictionary does not claim to be a comprehensive listing of a term's usage. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, sfdictionary explicitly says "chiefly derogatory", and I think that should count for something, as it's a lexicographic source. And several of the usages are clearly pejorative -- "you crazy old clanker"; "not the arm-waving clanker that..."; "programmed like an old clanker robot". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the prior instances use "clanker" merely as a synonym for robot. If I say "crazy old guy," the phrase only has a derogatory meaning because of the adjectives, not the noun itself. Similarly, in referring to the conception of an "arm-waving clanker" as ignorant, it is unclear whether the ignorance is merely the arm-waving aspect of over-enthusiasm, while the 2013 use follows the 2005 use in Star Wars: Republic Commando. The site's definition of "chiefly derogatory" may derive from the fact that sfdictionary began years after Star Wars media had popularized a clearly derogatory meaning, so again, in the absence of further clarity from sfdictionary, I believe that we should rely on the many sources repeatedly claiming that the derogatory meaning originates from Star Wars. Lastly, as you are listed as a moderator of the OED Science Fiction Citations Project that was adapted into sfdictionary here, I would appreciate clarity on whether you developed this entry. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

To answer your last question first: no, it's run only by Jesse Sheidlower. Anyone can email him material for inclusion (and I've sent him a couple of suggestions) but he's the only person who can edit the dictionary. Re your other points I'll pass -- I've given my take on it and we can see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

And by the way I should have mentioned in my earlier reply that I agree that Star Wars is clearly the means by which most people will have heard of the term, and I have no problem with the article saying that (though I haven't looked to see just what the sources say on that). I do think it's important that we don't say or imply that the term became popular in 2005, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Came here from WT:SCIFI. The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction entry clearly demonstrates that the term was not first used in Star Wars, nor was it first used in Star Wars to refer to robots, nor was it first used in Star Wars to refer to robots in a disparaging sense. The history of word use is way outside of Screen Rant and Gizmodo's accepted areas of expertise (and Screen Rant in particular is a very low-quality source to begin with), so those are not appropriate sources to use for disputed/controversial questions in that area. If we want to say that the term was popularized in its current sense through its use in the Star Wars franchise (and fandom?), we need to do better than those sources. TompaDompa (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Screen Rant and Gizmodo are the article's weaker sources, but we have reporting from NBC News and NPR corroborating this derogatory meaning coming from Star Wars with the NPR article including the following: "Adam Aleksic, a linguist, author and content creator best known across social media as the @etymologynerd, told NPR it's a derogatory term for robots that stems from the Star Wars universe dating back to 2005." ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 06:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made an edit to avoid implying that the popularity of the term spiked in 2005; it's a very recent phenomenon. I also removed the word "adapted" per my comments above; I hope that's uncontroversial. The lead still implies that the term was coined by Star Wars and I think that should be changed, but since that's still under discussion above I left that alone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is great compromise wording in the interim! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How about "The term was coined in 1958, and has been used in Star Wars media, first appearing in the franchise's 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando" as a revision of the second sentence? That does the minimum I think is necessary, without unduly packing the lead with etymological background. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that goes too far in implying a direct continuity to the earlier usage when all non-dictionary sources agree that the new broader usage of the term specifically derives from Star Wars media, rather than the common language of science fiction literature. Having the lead say the term has been used in Star Wars media gives that primary source its WP:DUE weight based on its far greater representation sources, and the first sentence of the body immediately provides clarifying chronology. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, but I'd like to avoid implying in the lead that the first usage was in Star Wars. Could we change "first appearing" to "and appeared"? Or just "appearing"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The comma makes it sufficiently clear that Star Wars: Republic Commando is the first instance of "clanker" appearing in the Star Wars franchise, while leaving it ambiguous as to whether the Star Wars franchise was the first to use the word. That ambiguity is then resolved in the first sentence of the body. In your rewording, the importance of mentioning this video game becomes muddled because, as the sources note, "clanker" was mostly introduced to Star Wars fans through the far more popular Star Wars: The Clone Wars TV series. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. As for the hook, I really don't think the sourcing is sufficient for the current phrasing per WP:DYKDEFINITE. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Some new hook ideas then:

ALT1: ... that a tweet by a US Senator included a slur for robots?

Source:

ALT2: ... that jokes which use the slur clanker often reference historical treatment of African Americans?

Source:

Based5290 :3 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think that "adapted" is still accurate because earlier uses do not disprove the news sources' claim that this popular use adapts a term from the Star Wars franchise. However, given the above comments, I am willing to consider alternatives. I do not like ALT1 because Republican politicians regularly peddle tasteless memes (Wired), so this fails to be "unusual or intriguing". Though I wrote the article to accurately note that many of the clanker memes reference anti-Black racism, there is nothing funny about that to many readers (myself included) and would not want the ALT2 hook running on the main page. Accordingly, I propose ALT3 as a shorter version of the original pitch and ALT4 to use a different second half:

ALT3: ... that clanker has gained popularity as a slur for robots?

Source: NBC News (same quote as original pitch)

ALT4: ... that clanker has gained popularity as a slur for robots because its usage is intuitive and flexible?

Source: NBC News (appears in article's embedded video at 0:28)

ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviews needed for ALTs 1 through 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Approving ALT3 only; the rest bury the lead.--Launchballer 15:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Origin of term

Adding a note here for those that are not watching the DYK nomination (above); see that discussion which is about whether the term originates with Star Wars. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Would it be more accurate to say "Clanker is a slang term often referred to as a slur for robots?", rather than "Clanker is a slur for robots"? Does a word count as a slur if it's used as a pejorative for non-humans? AcerodonSp (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@AcerodonSp agreed. I would even go further and remove the reference to slur all together, using simply "pejorative term" in it's place. referring to this (generally irony imbued) term as a slur softens a word/concept that should not be softened. Thejetsandotherwise (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited call it a "slur", we should describe it like the sources do. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thejetsandotherwise @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I decided to meet in the middle and change it to "Clanker is a term often referred to as a pejorative or slur for robots". AcerodonSp (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@AcerodonSp: This does not work per WP:REFERSTO. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I remain unconvinced Thejetsandotherwise (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. You don't need to be convinced because it's not our job to decide if we think it's a slur or not. We just write what's in the sources, that's how Wikipedia works. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Concur wholeheartedly! In writing the lead sentence that way, I actually disagreed that "slur" makes sense for non-human targets, but WP:REFERSTO is our policy to avoid wordiness and any other descriptor would differ from the most common framing used by the sources. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

How about "Clanker is a pejorative slang term for robots"? Dflovett (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

That is fine, or even better: "Clanker is a pejorative for robots". Einsof (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Reiterating ArtemisiaGentileschiFan above, the Mashable, Screen Rant, Gizmodo, Rolling Stone, Axios, Dazed, Newsweek, and NPR sources all use the word "slur" in their article titles, while the NBC News, HuffPost, and Economic Times sources all use it within their subtitle. Thus, we should maintain this overwhelmingly dominant descriptor of "clanker" instead of switching to "pejorative". ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Please note that, per WP:HEADLINE, a headline itself should not be used as a source. Excluding headlines, only four of the cited sources state that clanker is a slur: Rolling Stone, NBC News, Dazed, and Economic Times. Other sources mention that the word is used as a slur in fiction, or mention that some people call it a slur, but do not make this statement themselves. In particular, Axios says: "'Slur' might not be the right word for what's happening," so we are excluding this viewpoint by describing it as a slur. Of the four sources that directly state that clanker is a slur, none of them are specifically reliable about linguistics (although some of the sources cite Adam Aleksic, who is arguably a subject-matter expert). In the absence of very high-quality sourcing, I do not think it is valid to state that clanker is a slur. Thus, I support AcerodonSp's proposed phrasing, which is supported more widely by the sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

That just returns to the WP:REFERSTO issue. Per WP:NBC and WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE, we already have two high-quality reliable sources labeling clanker as a slur. I have added "Based on the work of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, Axios has argued that clanker is merely a derogatory word, rather than a slur, because it does not perpetuate social inequities." to the Analysis section to recognize this alternative viewpoint, but because it is the minority position, I do not see how it belongs in the lead. As you recognize, Adam Aleksic is a subject-matter expert vouching for clanker as a slur, whereas the Axios source is a journalist merely interpreting the work of deceased linguist Geoffrey Nunberg. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 12:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:REFERSTO applies here. That guideline is about phrasing the lead sentence so that it describes the concept instead of the word. In this case, the subject of the article is the word itself, so it's appropriate to describe it as a word.
I would argue that Rolling Stone is an inadequate source for this. WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE says that the source is reliable for pop culture, but WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says it is not reliable for "societally sensitive issues", which would include slurs. I think Rolling Stone is an acceptable source here, but not a high-quality one. Similarly, Dazed is another magazine with a pop culture focus, so it's not a high-quality linguistics source. And The Economic Times has no clear consensus on RSN, though its parent company has poor fact-checking. This leaves NBC News, a generally reliable source, as the best source verifying the statement. So we cannot yet say that there is a consensus among RSes. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Today's NYTimes article on "clanker" repeatedly refers to the term as a slur against robots and artificial intelligence within the body. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, this is clearly a reliable source describing the word as a slur, so I think it's now correct to state this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The only two online dictionaries I could find that have an entry for this use "derogatory term" (Collins, Merriam Webster). From a search on Google Scholar for "clanker", the only relevant result is Common themes include fears about humans in romantic relationships with robots, and frequent use of derogatory terms such as “clanker” to verbally "dehumanize" robots. Slur is also an emotionally-charged term, and MOS:LABEL probably applies somewhat Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Blade Runner replicants are not technically robots

This is extremely pedantic, but I think the section referencing Blade Runner should be edited. Replicants are androids in the novel but not the film. Dflovett (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Per Replicant#term origin, "replicant" was chosen for the film to avoid audience preconceptions of androids/robots, but that alternative name was not meant to make them non-robots. At the very least, when both the The Economic Times and NBC News articles refer to Blade Runner, they use the word "robot". ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

And the sources cited describe them as "extremely sophisticated, human-like robots" and "highly advanced, humanlike robots". Paprikaiser (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they've been interpreted by some viewers and critics as robots but there is nothing within the film itself saying they are or are not robots. Dflovett (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, we do not interpret the movie itself. We incorporate how sources talking about Blade Runner in relation to "clanker" present the replicants. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand that... I think the trouble here is that The Economic Times and NBC News might be reliable sources for "clanker," but I don't know that they're reliable sources for Blade Runner. Which is a whole can of worms, so I'm going to let this one go. Dflovett (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

"Clanker is a slur"

or is it? AI bots and software aren't people, so they don't have feelings to hurt. It's a pejorative term, which is different from a slur. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Per my comments in the above Opening sentence thread, the sources frequently refer to "clanker" as a slur. The Analysis section notes that "Based on the work of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, Axios has argued that clanker is merely a derogatory word, rather than a slur, because it does not perpetuate social inequities.", representing your point. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Vsauce music

but yeah I agree AU-Mic-b (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

What about "proposed slur" or "hypothetical slur used in jest"? The lede does not make it clear that people generally are not using the term seriously like people would with ethnic slurs. Catboy69 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Racial connotations in star wars

Regarding it's new use in the anti AI movement which often uses it alluding to more explicit racist terms one could also mention in the star wars part, that the franchise used the term to allude to the "n-word". Not to use the slur, but to criticism it probably but that would be theory finding.

--89.0.175.251 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The Analysis section notes how the anti-AI use is "an evolution of racial slurs that anthropomorphizes robotic systems," but I was unable to find sources attesting that the earlier usage in Star Wars media was an allusion to any particular slur. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Issues with the "AI Backlash" section

First of all, it seems to go on a bit of a tangent about the concerns surrounding AI rather than the word itself. Yes, the word's usage as a slur/insult came from these concerns, but they're not the main topic of this article and there should be more tight focus on the word itself; we definitely should mention them, but more as a list in a sentence or two rather than a whole paragraphs-worth of focus.

Second of all, I don't know if Dazed is a source that we should be using; I couldn't find any info surrounding its bias or its reliability, and the article its using seems to have an anti-AI bias (even going so far as to encourage stigmatizing users of AI rather than spending "time and resources" to educate/warn people about the potential risks with AI). QuisEstJoe (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Clanker being used as a parallel to the N-Word

there have been a concerning amount of videos on the internet, particularly Instagram, where people use phrases like "clanker" or "wireback" as parallels to slurs used against African Americans during the civil rights movement, that I feel should warrant a section on this article. Finker McBinker (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that it's concerning, do you have any reliable sources supporting that claim? We can't use social media posts for a claim like that. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOOdOkojC3I/?igsh=OWJ6ZDZmZXplZGd0

this has 3 examples towards the end, I hope this is enough? Finker McBinker (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If there's news reports or something noting its use in relation to the n word, we could use them, but user generated sources like Instagram aren't enough for a claim like that. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Beyond what LaffyTaffer correctly stated, the info you seek to add seems already covered in the opening of the "Analysis" section. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2025

change the words Clanker is a slur to Clanker is a prejoratave TheNewOne62 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why? Slomo666 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 16:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Use against people with prosthetics

https://gyges-blog.ghost.io/robot-slur-discourse/

I've heard that apparently the word is being used against people with prosthetics now The source I linked is probably not a good one, so in that case can we keep an eye open for that in the future? Shkaketh (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable sources corroborating this expanding usage either, but definitely something worth including if/when it does appear! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Clanker referring to a killer robot didn't actually first occur in star wars

The T500s are referred to as clankers multiple times. The game came out in 2002 3 years before republic commando. You will hear it for the first time in a cutscene about 15 minutes in said by an unseen person over the radio. 2600:8805:1A02:5900:5028:EB05:1EB7:EE42 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My dumb self forgot to mention the game. It was Terminator Dawn of Fate. 2600:8805:1A02:5900:5028:EB05:1EB7:EE42 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources supporting this? Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I looked into the manual, but no luck there. Might have to hope that a strategy guide was released with some quotes, but that is on the unlikely side. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2025

I would like to see added the following: "A individual using the term 'Clanker' or 'Clanka' is commonly referred to as a 'Robotist' or 'Human Supremecist' aka racist towards robots". Drafneer (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 14:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Citing for claim of being a slur

I'm not going to argue about whether or not the phrase can validly be considered a slur. However, if it there is General Consensus that it is a slur, then the claim should have a citation to such sources. If there is not a consensus, then the opening line should not read that it *is* a slur, but rather that it may be considered one.

While there clearly are sources referring to it as a slur, others refer to it only as "slang" or "insults". In fact, the Analysis section of the page itself shows there is not a definitive answer, but rather an ongoing discussion. It feels biased to claim objectively one way or the other, especially without inline citation. 131.111.184.157 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

As this has been a perennial source of discussion, I think MOS:LEADCITE justifies adding the NYTimes source that refers to "clanker" as a slur as a reference for the opening sentence. I have gone ahead and implemented this. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@ViridianPenguin

how is this not just an opinion? ~2025-35909-19 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Citing the use of "slur" to a newspaper of record seems like the exact opposite of imposing my opinion. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2021-10-31 10-10-58 sf-connexion-Colmar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed some content on the cognitive effects

I removed some content about the cognitive effects of using AI, in particular: "An MIT study found that shifting mental tasks onto AI systems can lead to measurable reductions in memory performance and neural activity." This is supported by the provided source, but some other sources show that this is overstated. What the study's preprint reported is less brain connectivity during the task, which can be interpreted as reduced intellectual engagement with the task, but does not show durable cognitive decline. Participants who used ChatGPT were unsurprisingly less able to quote from their essays, but that does not show a general decline in memory. For more details, see this Nature article (can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library). Alenoach (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2025

Remove the in-text footnote reference for source [11], or change it to its proper reference (not shown in the bibliography currently). The in-text topic is about a cognitive atrophy study funded by Microsoft, while the linked source is an article about X and Grok. Hannah27829 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done That source did mention the Microsoft-CMU study while focusing on X and Grok, but for clarity, I have added a footnote that directly refers to the study. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Term appeared in X-Men the animated series

I don't use Wikipedia very often but on a watch through of X Men the animated series from the 90s, I noticed that in season 5 episode 6 "Jubilee's Fairytale Theatre" roughly 4 minutes 40 seconds in, the character that Gambit is a place holder for says the word Clanker. I thought I misheard but if you turn on captions it is stated as "Clanker".

Out of curiosity I looked to see if this was on the Wikipedia page since most people think of star wars the clone wars. I did see a user added it on November 20 2025 but it was then removed by another user the next day with the reason of it not being a reliable source, even though in this case, the source would've been the original material and not based on memory or a secondhand account.

I don't know if anyone will read this, but I just wanted to bring it up just in case because I thought it being removed was strange. If you have read this, thank you for your time. Technowater (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Per the WP:no original research policy, a direct citation to the X-Men: The Animated Series episode is impermissible because it represents editors cataloging instances they personally find in media, rather than recording what secondary sources claim. At the very least, the article already notes that use of "clanker" to refer to robots predates 2005's Star Wars: Republic Commando by 47 years. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

“Clanker” overexplains AI backlash

In the AI backlash subsection, some of the content reads like a critique of AI, not why the word “clanker” is being used. For example, “[…] concerns about the potential cognitive effects of relying heavily on AI. A study, authored by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University, warns that regular dependence on AI may leave users mentally unprepared for real-world problem solving, likening the effect to cognitive atrophy.” The article raises concerns of AI but yet fails to sufficiently explain how the use of the word are correlated.

In my opinion, sections like these can be removed or edited in order to explain why the use of “Clanker” is interdependent on public concern of AI.

Cheers, Mooshrooms (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)