After having read the article, I concur that it does not warrant such a prominent place. There's a paragraph dedicated to his views on Jews, and they're not particularly antisemitic, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a feature of the core of his thinking, merely a (convenient?) derivative of it. Mentioning his rejection of values he associated with Jews in the second paragraph would have been more consistent. There's more in that introduction that shouldn't be there, e.g. the phrase about admiring Himmler.

If that's proof of bias is another matter.

> There's a paragraph dedicated to his views on Jews, and they're not particularly antisemitic

Are we reading the same article? It says 'Evola viewed Jews as corrosive' and that he believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were broadly accurate even if they were fake.

I doubt that scanning a Wikipedia article is sufficient qualification to announce that someone has been confirmed an antisemite or not, but I'm sure victims of antisemitism are grateful for your judgement.

Uh he wrote the foreword to the second Italian edition of The Protocols, a notorious anti-semitic book. It does warrant a prominent place.