Talk:Racism among libertarians

This page doesn't really have a cohesive enough case to exist. There's certainly racism among libertarians, but I don't really see a good evidence-based case to highlight it as a distinct problem from "there is a lot of racism" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe a merger into Libertarianism? I haven't read the article and I'm on my way out, so I don't know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should be a section of the Libertarian page. Petey Plane (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree too - libertarianism has its flaws but it isn't inherently racist. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Otherwise we wind up with one of these for a whole bunch of political ideologies. Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Libertarians ain't racist cause theyy're libertarians, they racist despite of it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of the not quite up-to-par English of the banned user Arisboch, who is German. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is off topic, whine in the Coop about it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging is a bit tough, because it talks entirely in broad strokes. I'm not sure where the salvagable bits are.  If I were to merge everything I thought was worth saving, the only action I'd take is vaporizing.  Save what you want to save, I'll check back in a couple days, and if there's no shift in the opinion on the talk page, that's just what I'm gonna do.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of in favour of the article is that racists might be drawn to libertarianism's anti-censorship and anti-affirmative action positions. And that's thin soup to base an article on. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The ultimate problem here
...to me, is the absolute lack of sources. This entire article, while well-written and very much on mission, simply does not use sources. There's sentence on sentence with "Some argue" and "others argue". These are the classic citation needed statements. And this article builds entirely on those. I'm not saying that these things couldn't be sourced. But if they aren't, I don't even know if we can keep this text, never mind merge it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)