I am posting this for the benefit of those editors who have recently begun to look at the LaRouche articles. The issues are complex, and Will has erected an impressive set of defenses to keep new editors away. He has single-handedly protected three of the worst articles from being improved in any way by a dozen or so editors over the past three months.
I should add that everything I say about Will would also apply to SlimVirgin. She saw the gathering storm over BLP abuses and began to strictly avoid editing LaRouche articles, but she and Will jointly developed their tactics and in the past she has been a reliable tag-teamer when needed. She could re-appear if Will is in serious difficulty.
First, the question of sources. There were a small gaggle of non-credible critics of LaRouche in the late 70s and early 80s, all of whom were affiliated with various "new left" fringe groups: Dennis King of the Progressive Labor Party, Helen Gilbert of the Freedom Socialist Party, and the ever-popular Chip Berlet. They published wild accusations in various "alternative" weekly newspapers.
However, there were a couple of inflection points in the 80s. LaRouche activists had been out on the streets beginning in 1977, calling for joint US-Soviet development of anti-ballistic missile defenses based on lasers and particle beams, energy beams that travel at or near the speed of light. In March of 1983, Reagan went on TV and announced that he had adopted the policy. LaRouche's friends and foes alike went "ZOMG he is influencing/infiltrating the Reagan Administration," and there was a coordinated response through the media where suddenly King and Berlet became marketable. They created boilerplate slanders of LaRouche which utilized the standard methodologies: innuendo, guilt by association, conspiracy theorizing, and downright free association. (Dennis King's book includes passages such as where he claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments, which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest." Nonetheless, Will continues to argue that this book is the best of all sources about LaRouche.) Another inflection point was when two LaRouche activists won the Democratic primary for state positions in Illinois. Some spin doctor, without doing any research whatsoever, opined that they won because of their "all-American names," and that became the standard explanation.
At the time, there was a consensus in the press that these characterizations of LaRouche would be repeated over and over. Will and Slim argue that under NPOV, the frequency of the assertion determines the weight that it should receive, so the same claim by the same commentator, multiplied by umpteen local papers that got it from a wire service, trumps scholarly analysis (if if can be found.) They both have a little mantra they recite if questioned: "We summarize what's found in reliable sources." In other words, Will had no choice but to add that particular material -- the reliable sources made him do it.
In case you didn't know, both Cberlet (T-C-L-K-R-D)
and Dking (T-C-L-K-R-D)
did extensive editing on the LaRouche articles, with the encouragement of Slim and Will, as can be seen from looking at their talk pages. Other Wikipedians were not as enthusiastic about this, and both of them eventually left, although their POV remains the house POV.
I have extensive familiarity with both the history of LaRouche and his movement, and the tactics employed by Will to enforce his POV on those articles. Feel free to PM me with questions.