The Rush Limbaugh lies that the Democrats are planning to take away people’s 401(k)s dispute on Wikipedia has now been opened up for comment to the entire Wikipedia community.  Below is an example of the side that is winning to whitewash the article.  In one sentence:  If somebody else says something, and you say it after them, you are not responsible for your words.

Whether there is or isn’t a Democrat plan to seize people’s 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn’t make it up. He was just repeating what he’d read and heard. The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election. And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right. But this article, which can’t be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct! So what’s it got to do with Limbaugh? It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other. — Zsero (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? So because another person said it, that doesn’t make Limbaugh responsible for what he says on multiple occasions? This isn’t “McCain said it also, so Limbaugh has no responsibility for what he says…” That doesn’t even make sense. We’re all responsible for our words, and Limbaugh isn’t saying “According to John McCain…” he is fervently saying this is the truth, from his own mouth, not McCain’s. –David Shankbone 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rainey dishonestly presented this as if Limbaugh had made it up in response to the election result. But he didn’t. It had been reported before the election, McCain was saying this before the election, so it’s not at all remarkable that Limbaugh would pick it up and repeat it. He’s not expected to do his own research; he sees something in a reliable-enough-for-talk-radio source, and repeats it. Much like LA Times reporters do. An article about Limbaugh should only have significant facts that are about him; if he had come up with this himself that would be significant, but repeating someone else’s research, whether careful or shoddy, is not. — Zsero (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That’s really silly. First, until you are prepared to research every statement made on this issue, just because you find one instance where McCain says something doesn’t mean he was the first. Second, are you saying we are not personally responsible for what comes out of our mouths if somebody else says it? Is Limbaugh not responsible to research for himself before he makes multiple statements. This is a pretty poor argument – nobody’s responsible for what they say until we can find the first person who said it – then, that person is responsible for it, and for whoever says it afterward. LOL! If only we could all use such logic to absolve ourselves of responsibility, but unfortunately, that’s not the way the world works. For any of us, liberal or conservative. –David Shankbone 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is my statement of the issue for the Request for Comment:

The issue is that on multiple occasions Limbaugh has stated that the “Democrats want your 401(k)” and that they are “planning” to “take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security.” There is no Democratic plan to take away the 401(k)[10] and James Rainey, in a column run in both the L.A. Times[11] and the Baltimore Sun, pointed that out.[12]. The basis for such an assertion is one economist out of many, Teresa Ghilarducci, testified before a bipartisan House committee chaired by George Miller (politician)and proposed ending the 401(k) as one facet of a multifaceted proposal.[13]. Ghilarducci herself stated that Miller does not support this part of her proposal.[14]. But Limbaugh continually tells his millions of listeners that this is a Democratic plan, to “take” or “get” people’s 401(k)s. I added one sentence–initially using Obama, which he often throws in for good measure, but more accurately he just says “the Democrats” so I changed it–under the “Questions about accuracy” section of the article. Instead of adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV, several editors either spin Limbaugh’s words to mean something else, or use other conservative commentators who are parroting the same line to say that it’s a fact (enter Truthiness and Wisdom of the crowd – enough people say, it’s got to be true). Is there a Democratic plan? No. Is there any evidence of a Democratic plan outside one economist’s testimony to a committee? No. Does Limbaugh continually say there is a plan by the Democrats to do so? Yes. Is this inaccurate? That’s putting it lightly. –David Shankbone 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m not succeeding.  Oh, and Gwen Gale wrote that this Carolina Journal piece gives “more meaningful talk about the confiscation of retirement funds in the states.”  But even the ultra-conservative John Birch Society ripped that piece apart as hysterical propaganda (they also mentioned that it neglects to talk about Republican efforts to take away 401(k)s).