Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a232efdb4ead79f3

Jump to content

Talk:Shylock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Jae in topic Use of term by Trump

remove the stereotypes that read as anti-semitic

[edit]

This line is offensve - Shylock is a stingy Jew who lends money to his Christian rival Antonio, setting the security at a pound of Antonio's flesh.

Using the word stingy here is perpetuating the stereotype and reads as anti-semitic. It could be any other number of descriptive words Pavlob (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

well someone changed it to Shylock is a Jewish moneylender who loans 3,000 ducats to his Christian rival Antonio, setting the security at a pound of Antonio's flesh Laura240406 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Use of term by Trump

[edit]

US president Donald Trump referred to corrupt moneylenders as Shylocks in a 2025 speech and was widely criticized for it, but refused to apologize as he said he did not know it was offensive. Is this notable enough to include? See: ~2025-31856-38 (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at this today in light of Trump's comments (which I only learned of today). If what everyone seemed to say, namely that "shylock" is an antisemitic term, then I'd expect this article to mention it. But it doesn't, weirdly. --jae (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2025

[edit]

The sentence « In Venice, Jews had to live in a ghetto protected by Christians which was probably for their own safety. » has no citation. Implying people were forcibly restricted was for their benefit is a problematic statement in and of itself. ~2025-34356-33 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 23:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply