::That is your POV only because you are unwilling to actually read the sources and you are biased.  Look at the list of conservative-critical articles you edit.  How many liberal-critical articles do you edit?  I will not move on just because you wish it.  You have not engaged in good faith editing.  It is very clear we will end up in mediation.   
 ::There very much is a dispute!  So if we are going to define the "southern strategy" as just a plan to get southern votes then it's meaningless.  What candidate doesn't have some strategy to try to win voters in a region.  Alternatively, if we claim the "racist southern strategy" then we very clearly DO have sources who dispute it.  This wiki article treats the hypothesis as proven when it is still in dispute.   
 ::I think the pov of several of the editors who accused me of an edit war (without moving their reasons to talk per my request and per BOLD) is clear.  This morning a clearly biased and unsupported edit was made to the Wiki.  Rather than fix this clear flaw you and Tom have tried discredit sources that clearly meet Wiki reliable source standards.  That suggests that we have an issue with editor bias.