[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.