[no_time]

Yes. The old lets the reader to decide for him/herself whether he was antisemitic or not. Does not obstruct information about his views yet does not devolve into name calling in the first sentence.

I'm not trying to underplay what he is saying, but dismissing him in the first sentence on a supposedly neutral article really rubs me the wrong way.

[YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo]

There is no question that he was an antisemite if you read the sources provided on the very same page. He was objectively an antisemite there is no room for interpretation or your definition of the word differs from the one of the general public.

[Alenycus]

Would you have an issue if we put "suspected paedophile and open paedophile apologist" in the opening lines for philosophers like Foucault, Sarte and gore vidal? Those are also objective facts.

I would rather have dinner with a antisemite than a paedophile.

[ceejayoz]

Evola isn't a suspected antisemite, though, and calling someone an "apologist" probably doesn't fly on Wikipedia under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word....

[s1artibartfast]

[Deleted]

[ceejayoz]

That's hardly comparable.

Wiki's intro currently states:

> Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), better known as Julius Evola, was an Italian philosopher, poet, and painter whose esoteric worldview featured antisemitic conspiracy theories and the occult. He has been described as a "fascist intellectual", a "radical traditionalist", "antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular", and as "the leading philosopher of Europe's neofascist movement".

It does not appear to portray antisemitic beliefs as "the single most important or relevant fact about him". It presents them as an important fact, just as Washington's intro includes slaveholding before moving on to the table of contents.

[s1artibartfast]

I didn't mean to claim that the examples are comparable, just provide an example to highlight that there degrees to which you can highlight such views.

Ultimately, the relevance is subjective.

[ceejayoz]

> The old lets the reader to decide for him/herself whether he was antisemitic or not.

I think you've misunderstood the point of an encyclopedia, personally.

[jsmith99]

Realistically, only a small proportion read entire Wikipedia articles of such length. Most users would scan the introduction of the old version and come away with the belief he was some sort of noble hero, rather than a crackpot.

[gpvos]

If many reputable people say he's an antisemite, which is the case here, it belongs in the intro. The first sentence may be a bit too much in this case.