• Support. The shocking number of brazen falsehoods, many of which have been repeated dozens of times, are a defining feature of his persona, campaign and presidency. The current text fails to fully reflect this. The proposed text is an improvement. Us9r 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like "exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office." because that is one organization's number and hardly the "one true number" that we can definitely state without attribution. Another fact checking organization may say he made more than 3900 falsehoods etc. But I support

  His campaign received extensive free media coverage. A record number of his public statements, both during his campaign and presidency, have been misleading or false.

  An Admin 17:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  We can probably drop the "free media coverage" bit too; has importance but is honestly more relevant to articles on the media than Trump. Or we can make it His campaign received extensive free media coverage, in part due to his controversial statements but considering a large portion of his controversial statements relate to race, which we have a sentence on, seems unnecessary. An Admin 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Scratch that somewhat, just dropping the last bit, for During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements. is pretty good. (there is a slight grammar issue that I'll quibble over later) An Admin 17:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of the 7,500 part either, without the ", exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office" part I support it as an improvement. COMMENTER I 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support some addition – All politicians lie during campaigns; so the current text doesn't say anything specific to Trump. OTOH, the sheer volume of false or misleading statements during his presidency is a constant topic of RS and clearly DUE. My only concern is the number 7,500 which comes from one source. Attributing the number would solve that problem, but might suggest only one source exists for the high volume. It is attributed in the body which might be enough. Perhaps “exceeding, by one count, 7,500 by the end of his second year in office”. Another User. 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support - I am not a fan of the proposed text. I would prefer to see something like this: Trump has made a record number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The specifics of his mendacity (nature and number of lies) should be left to the body of the article. UsEr 4 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified support I now Support the current version with the "7,500" phrase struck out. I support Galobter's version, "During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements." Leave out the 7,500 which is unnecessary detail and is best left to the text, where it can be updated as needed. I also think, as I said in the above section (where I was hoping to postpone a formal RfC until we had reached some kind of local consensus about exactly what to propose; now we will have to keep changing it which is unfortunate in an RfC), that it should be moved from its current position in the paragraph to become the next-to-the-last sentence. Also, we may want to include a reference to support "record number". USER 5 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  USER 5 We're not necessarily committed to using RfC at this point. If this is sufficiently "unfortunate", we have the option of simply removing the ((rfc)) template before it goes too much further. USER 1. 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem is, there's no way to actually know if this statement is true. The amount of fact-checking done on presidents today is obviously a little more stringent than it was in, say, the 1820's. Much of how "factual" or honest/dishonest a statement is, varies with cultures and time. You can't really make a fair and direct comparison between the "truthfulness" of Trump's statements and John Quincy Adam's; thus, a "record number" seems like a very recentist viewpoint. User 3 18:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

One source says "unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate" = Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate. Would you be OK with something like that? USER 5 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

USER 5 - Yes. I think I would be. But I'd like to see the exact proposed wording. User 3 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

USER 5 I think 7500 is less problematic ... that is at least factually pointing to someone's count. There is no comparable count numbers done before though or the current level of scrutiny/ambush, so “unprecedented” comes off as just bloviating a tautology (since we never counted before, any result is unprecedented) and “modern candidates” seems unsuitable for the thread intent of going beyond the election and a bit unclear what “modern” is. Cheers Editor A 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be similar to what is done with popularity and approval reports: any comparison has to include the phrase "in the era of modern polling" (basically since the 1930s) because we have no way to judge the popularity of politicians before that time. Modern, formal fact checking of politicians began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003, although it had earlier roots with the "Ad Police" in the 1990s. (Of course Snopes predates them both, but Snopes evaluates a different type of material.) USER 5 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That isn't really true because none of these fact checkers have fact checked every statement uttered by Bush and Obama to compare it to Trump where they do fact check his every statement. Editor B. 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Bush and Obama WERE fact-checked. The era of formal fact-checking began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003. Other politicians during the past 16 years have also been subject to formal fact-checking. I agree that's a small sample compared to the nation's 200-year history, but it's not nothing. As for the number of statements that got evaluated for each president - there had to be some suspicion that a statement might not be true, for it to be fact-checked. They don't fact-check Trump when he says "today is Tuesday" or "I spoke with Putin" or "I signed this bill". They do fact-check him when he says things that are dubious like "we have already started building The Wall." USER 5 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with you USER 5 that Bush and Obama were probably as stringently fact-checked as Trump, I also agree with Editor B. in the sense that we don't really know what proportion of their comments were actually fact checked.

As I alluded to above, the problem with making any quantitative assertions about "truthfulness" (e.g. "most lies", "biggest liar", etc) is that truthfulness is ultimately a subjective measure for which there is no agreed upon scale or yardstick.

I think it's best to just stick to what we know is true, which is that a lot of sources has been critical of the "truthfulness" issue. User 3 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Relative superlatives "most", "worst" "unprecedented" are just words. I'd prefer a steady stream of harmless fibs than giant lies about private servers, IRS targeting and DOJ subterfuge. User 2. 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, but what we would prefer is irrelevant. The body of reliable sources agrees about as much as they could agree on anything: the phenomenon is unprecedented. They say that's significant, so it's significant. USER 1. 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Your statement does not nullify my position. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW. User 2. 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Your statement does not nullify my position. Sadly, I think you're right. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW. In that case perhaps you can explain this edit, in which you added far more content on the strength of far less RS coverage. USER 1. 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • User 2., perhaps you can clarify your contribution to this discussion. It's difficult to interpret it as anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Whataboutism.Nominator 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I oppose adding further rhetoric to the matter. Since we sadly must rely on the NEWS as I did in the edit USER 1. points out, in my effort in June I tried to add a neutral treatise based on a source I thought most editors here would find suitable (in other words, not FoxNews). I don't like having to rely on NEWS but I do recognize we must since this article is mostly recentism issues, especially the issues of greatest concern. Be that as it might, I see no reason to expand wording but of course since this is the encyclopedia anyone (even those disinterested/incapable/too busy using the website for partisan purposes other than for substantive higher level work) can edit, we can be sure the body of the article will go into exhaustive details about this matter, and least that is more acceptable than turning the intro into a full court press attempt to malign this person.--User 2. 03:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you for clarifying that you consider widely-reported facts to be rhetoric; you consider things that have continued from 2015 to 2019 to be recent; you think this article is controlled by partisans who don't otherwise contribute to building the encyclopedia; and you object to content critical of Trump, in the lead.Nominator 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Let's see: no, yes (since I am old), not totally but the talkpage might be, and no. But if selective reading is your forte and that still works for you then mush on lad.--User 2. 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, and I suggest adopting the language I added some months ago, for which an editor hauled me before a tribunal and requested I be sentenced to death. heh commenter two 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You going to share that language with us? Or should we just adopt it sight unseen? (Glad to hear you survived your inquisition.) 0;-D USER 5 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This language that was removed shows 1) it's a lifelong phenomenon; 2) it was well-known early in his candidacy; 3) it has continued well into his presidency, with figures showing the magnitude (5000) and frequency (125 in two hours, which we could update with more recent data, such as WaPo's 15 per day during 2018)

Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods. Within six months of announcing his presidential candidacy, FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers," stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match." By the 20th month of his presidency, Washington Post fact checkers counted 5,000 instances of his false or misleading statements — including 125 during a single two-hour period.

commenter two 22:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually like that. For the article text, of course, not the lead. USER 5 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

USER 5 — feel free to enjoy soiblangas creative writing, but I suggest you revisit the archive where it failed when it was current. Let's not add resurrecting past issues to add to this mess. It's big enough on its own. Cheers Editor A 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support with "unprecedented". It's an improvement, but it doesn't sit well with me because the emphasis is wrong. The sheer number of falsehoods isn't that important; what's important is that dishonesty has been a hallmark of Trump's campaign and presidency and he seems to have little or no care for the truth. Surely we have sources that hit closer to the mark? J. Doe 23:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Of course the data about Trump should be in the article. This is laughable. Let's remove everything bad about him and add only vague, general things so it seems like he in any way fulfilled his responsibilities and duties as a president, which every reliable source confirms he didn't. WriTer 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is in response to my comment, please know that I support including stuff in this article about the number of falsehoods. We're talking about the lead here, which by the relevant guideline very much should include vague, general things since it's supposed to be a summary, not a collection of datapoints. J. Doe 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don't make an OR mixture. Keep it clean and simple, don't mix two items. The campaign coverage is RS, anything else should be a separate line if significant enough to suit LEAD. Admixture with later and separate stories to make combined theories is OR, and there seems a soapboxing TALK to underline that. It seems he is basically the same as during the campaign, but that comparison just seems not a big news item among other choices. Cheers Editor A 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support with "unprecedented". Support the change in principle but "a record number of" is wp:weasel -- when compared to other presidents? any person? etc. "Unprecedented" highlights how unusual Trump is in this regard, without saying "mostest". User D.ee 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is just as weasel, if not more so actually. COMMENTER I 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

COMMENTER I How so? The word is sourced, so what's the problem? How would you attempt to describe Trump's astonishing level of mendacity in a way that is palatable? UsEr 4 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not use any weasel qualifiers as I mentioned in my vote above. The purpose of my comment here is if "a record number" is weasel then so is unprecedented. It is poor logic is all. Both are very well sourced to dozens of places heck we could probably source "omg mostest" but they are all still kind of weasel. Best to just leave it to the body to describe the extent of it all. COMMENTER I 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Per above, support addition (with "record" or a similar word), but change "false or misleading" to "inaccurate". We have to cover his false/inaccurate statements, mildly inaccurate ones, distorted ones, unsubstantiated ones, but not "misleading" ones as that is POV. When he says a true thing that his opponents dislike, they call it "misleading" (source: every true thing he's ever said). uSER 10 12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

uSER 10 May I ask what sources you are reading that dispute that Trump has made numerous misleading claims? "Inaccurate" would not be an appropriate word to use as it would wrongly imply that Trump only occasionally makes minor mistakes.Nominator 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what sources you have used that more than a couple of his false claims are major? uSER 10 13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because I never claimed "more than a couple of his false claims are major". My assertion is that Trump made a record (or unprecedented) number of false or misleading statements.

• "When 2018 began, the president had made 1,989 false and misleading claims,... By the end of the year, Trump had accumulated more than 7,600 untruths during his presidency — averaging more than 15 erroneous claims a day during 2018, almost triple the rate from the year before."
• "Should Donald Trump's advisers share the blame for his unprecedented record of untruths—or is the President alone accountable?"
• "...Trump hit a(nother) milestone: He topped 3,000 untrue or misleading statements in 466 days in office."
• "He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begun on any new section)."Nominator 13:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support amended wording with "a record number of false or misleading statements". However I would move to keep the sentence about free media coverage, because it was acknowledged (both by supporters and opponents) as a very important element of Trump's campaign. The sentence about false statements should stand on its own and be placed at the end of the campaign paragraph, where we transition into the presidency. Individual Won 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Individual Won Seems not supported by cites, predominantly they give big numbers and not say “record” or “unprecedented “. I don't really view the counts as clear or solid measures, but at least its a specific thing a specific source prominently said. Cheers Editor A 00:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support in some form, although we could hammer out the exact wording a bit more if people want. The basic idea here seems extremely heavily-covered in the sources. The current reading is definitely insufficient (it doesn't catch the fact that Trump has made an unusually high number of false statements, which the sources are nearly unanimous on.) Wikipedian 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The scale and scope is this is historic. I frankly like the number in the statement. Random Contributor 04:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Record" - record implies there is some count which compares Trump directly to others. What's the count? Who won 2nd place? Is it all time worldwide record? Contemporary US politics record? Something else? I would support something along the lines of "large number" or "very frequent" etc. Editor 6 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Editor 6 Then the objection becomes: What's a "large number" or "very frequent"? Trust me, many editors will have some objection to any language whatsoever until there is a precise number of falsehoods agreed upon by six out of a panel of nine apolitical political analysts, and they do the same for every president since FDR for comparison (insufficient records for earlier presidents). Of course Trump will be dead by the time they finish their work. No, we should just go with sources per Wikipedia policy, and there is ample support for either "record" or "unprecedented". USER 1. 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, lets talk about sources (per Wikipedia policy), "record number" is a very strict statement, so what sources back that claim? My quick googling didn't really give any very solid clear cut hits. On other hand, if one were to use a more flexible general statement "large number"/"numerous"/"very frequent"/etc., then it could be reasonably backed simply by providing several reliable sources which discuss Trump's false statements with similar terminology, which seems quite a bit easier. Editor 6 21:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – It doesn't matter whether there hasn't been a record for past presidents; since there has been a record (probably the latter part of the 19th century), his is the most. When we say "hottest day on record", we're not suggesting it's the hottest day ever, we're just suggesting it is the highest since we started keeping track. -NameHERE- 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

but here there is no comparable past instance of keeping track, or even clear counting basis / agreement. We have clear cite to support “widely criticized”, or that a named person counted 7500. Beyond that we could say 'named person said unprecedented, with no supporting evidence', which comes off as either false or emotional hyperbole. Or we could say that Obama was the president with most falsehoods before Trump... Cheers Editor A 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You can't say "hottest day on record" if the record only includes one day. Blanked 16:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Of course it should, as per Us9r. Just a Fan 13:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Yes, certainly it should be included. Best to leave off the numbers, IMO. Watcher 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support, using either "record" or (as some proposed above) "unprecedented", although I would prefer to retain the sentence about free media coverage, for reasons some other editors above outlined, and because it seems orthogonal to the issue at hand (replacing one phrasing/sentence about false statements with another phrasing/sentence about false statements). S1lent 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose How can one even know such a thing? Did someone go back and fact-check every statement made by every president since Washington? User 7 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominator, you suggested above that if anyone prefers a different wording, they create a subsection to this RfC. I would suggest instead that you follow the overwhelming opinion here, and strike the phrase about the number of falsehoods from your proposed sentence. USER 5 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, but echoing Another User.'s comment, I do think we need to express the magnitude of the falsehoods. I had previously written: "He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.". Maybe there's a way to say "record breaking" and "thousands" in a couple of words. Nominator 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Modified UsEr 4: Trump has made a record thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. USER 1. 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. Nominator 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Another User. 18:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No. "a record thousands" is unclear and awkward. USER 5 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, as it's structurally identical to Lotteries paid out a record $340 million in 2018. which seems quite natural. We're simply replacing a precise number with "thousands of". Proposed improvement? USER 1. 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Leave out "thousands" or any other number; among other problems, the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated. Keep as currently proposed - simply "a record number" (thank you for the strikeout, Nominator). USER 5 18:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Have you ever seen a lottery say "we paid out a record millions of dollars"? Or an athlete described as "he threw a record dozens of interceptions"? USER 5 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that I review the source[1] cited in the main article from which I borrowed "record", I'm not sure it's actually verifiable. I'm looking into this further... Nominator 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominator, thanks for pinging me. I wish I could remember what sources in the body justified that wording, but I can't. It certainly summarizes the conclusions of multiple fact checkers, who declare they have never seen a politician so dishonest. They never seen anyone like him. "Unprecedented" is certainly a word which can be used. EDitor C 03:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The reporter who exposed Trump's record-breaking lying ahead of midterms EDitor C 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated, as they should. Repeating a falsehood is worse than stating it once. Repeating it twice is worse than repeating it once. And so on. USER 1. 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If "record" demands a number, how about "unprecedented" instead? There's plenty of sourcing for that. Examples:

^{[1] [2] [3][4]}

USER 5 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ? Fine with me. USER 1. 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented sounds like WP:PUFFERY, while certainly supported by RS it does not fit. COMMENTER I 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

where is the research to back up unprecedented or record except as the opinion of these writers do they have a total for all other presidents. Editor B. 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Scroll up. It was added by USER 5 40 minute before you posted you question.

Nominator 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question have they looked at every utterance by previous presidents to see who lied more. So unless someone actually fact checks every statement by previous presidents words like record or unprecedented are just opinions and don't belong here. Editor B. 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not our concern, as long as we use reliable sources that have a solid reputation for fact checking, which we do. Nominator 🖋 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is OK, but a bit vague. I favor "thousands" or "nearly ten thousand", which gives readers a sense of how unprecedented this president's fibbing really is. Nominator 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor B. well yes it is puffery. Since it's the first time anyone counted, obviously it's a record or unprecedented. But it's puffery by RS writers not by WP editors so it's able to be included if they actually used that word, it suits WEIGHT, and is not OFFTOPIC of BLP. Many would obviously say bigger liars / lies were done in the past, see Bill Clinton, Reagan, LBJ, Nixon ... but that wasn't reported back when via oddball opinion counting. Cheers Editor A 03:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not QUITE the first time anyone counted. George W. Bush and Barack Obama were also fact-checked, as were other politicians since around 2003. I agree that's a pretty small sample for formal fact-checking; previous presidents were only called out for occasional whoppers, not analyzed for everything they said. What makes Trump unique is that he says, and repeats over and over, so many quasi-factual claims that are simply not true in the real world. If there were presidents before him who did that, they precede living memory. USER 5 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

USER 5 do you have a cite for an actual count on Bush and Obama? I don't recall any literal count on fact-checks, or actual insight into the 7500 count for that matter. And I'm going to point out that quasi-factual claims are common with politicians as the fact-check websites opine on for Bush and Obama... and “quasi-factual” isn't up for using is it? Criticised is verifiable, that a specific person said 7500 is verifiable, but a mashup of two statements said widely apart about different things seems OR and confusing. Try two lines, not a mangle. Cheers Editor A 01:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

if every utterance by previous presidents aren't fact checked then that statement is just an opinion. Editor B. 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've always thought the word unprecedented is used an unprecedented number of times. I'm OK with it here, but also prefer thousands, not only because the number is so high, but because it has been measured. Part of the reason the number of misstatements is so high is that no previous president has tweeted a dozen times a day. But, both volume and percentage matter, and both have been mentioned in RS, qualitatively in the case of percentage. Another User. 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I support USER 1.'s proposal as a workable compromise: (Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.). Nominator 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yuck. "An unprecedented thousands of" sounds like absolutely horrible English. I can just about stomach "an unprecedented number of" (assuming this is supported by sources). Perhaps this would be better:

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made thousands of false or misleading statements.

UsEr 4 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that “unprecedented thousands” is awkward. “Thousands” alone is an understatement. But, I have no problem with an understatement in the lede fleshed out in the body (even though casual readers never get that far). Another User. 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the omission of the essential point per RS, which is that it's unprecedented, not that it's thousands. USER 1. 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unprecendented" means without precedent; which is basically the same as "record". Also Not Brad 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement to use "unprecedented" without any numerical reference. I can go along with that. I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies. Nominator 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. How about this?

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.

UsEr 4 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Same complaint: I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies. Nominator 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I'd be delighted to remove that (During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.), I thought it would make it easier to attract support if we included it. UsEr 4 15:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this version the best. No awkwardness like "unprecedented thousands" and no need to hedge it with "fact checkers said". We might consider adding a reference, a good strong one, since otherwise we will have people here at talk saying "who says?", five times a week for the duration of his presidency. USER 5 16:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with USER 5. Nominator 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok as to content. Oppose a citation:

1. This article has so far managed to remain citation-free in the lead. I like that. If the statement isn't unambiguously supported by sourced content in the body, that can be and should be corrected.

2. A citation wouldn't prevent people from insisting we need attribution, five times a week for the duration of his presidency. Alternatively,

3. I haven't seen a continuous stream of people saying "who says?" many of his public statements were controversial or false—content that has stood unchanged for a long time. Actually I haven't seen enough to recall any. USER 1. 16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, those are good points. I am striking the suggestion of a citation. USER 5 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

After extensive discussion above the following wording was proposed by UsEr 4 and immediately agreed-to by three other people, so I am posting it here as a proposed wording. USER 5 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1: During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.
• Support per discussion. USER 1. 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Switch to #3. USER 1. 01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose use of unprecedented. Editor B. 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Many RS use this wording, and, although it doesn't really say just how unprecented (nearly every sentence contains some sort of falsehoood or misleading element), it's still useful content. His biographers and others who really know him say he lies with every breath, lies reflexively, and has no regard for truth. EDitor C 18:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not need weasel words or qualifiers in the lead for this. That info can be found in the body where it belongs. COMMENTER I 18:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reliably-sourced wording is not weasel wording. That refers to editors adding such words. Since you object, please suggest better wording. "Unprecendented" isn't even opinion, but is how fact checkers summarize the actual statistics, IOW this is an evidence-based description of research findings. EDitor C 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So COMMENTER I, you would support During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made a number of false or misleading statements.? Considering that sources report that his lying is increasing in frequency, is unprecedented, and is deliberate, don't you think that wording might appear to our readers to be whitewashing the facts? Nominator 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support that phrasing of it. I am just not a fan of unprecedented. Between unprecedented and record I like record better from the main RFC. COMMENTER I 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is a BLP, not limited to his campaign and presidency. As shown in veracity, his looseness with truth dates back decades. It is a core defining characteristic of the man and the lede must reflect that with a full paragraph of at least two sentences containing some specificity. Anything less is a capitulation to a small number of partisans who have fought tooth and nail to prevent this truth from being acknowledged, evidently in an effort to drag WP into an alternate-reality post-truth age (Bannon: "the way to deal with [the press] is to flood the zone with shit.”). We don't need to wait for history books to be written to know this reality is staring us in the face right now. commenter two 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• You may want to reconsider that. This moves things in the right direction. The ideal may have to wait. EDitor C 18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• This nonsense has gone on too long. The article will remain essentially a worthless whitewash until this key aspect of the man's persona is prominently presented in the lede, and no reasonable person should be willing to wait to read it in a history book.commenter two 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but you need to be pragmatic here, because your firm idealism (which I share) may block progress. EDitor C 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yep. Despite popular opinion, compromise is not a dirty word. USER 1. 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• commenter two, you are opposing because you think this isn't enough? You think there should be a full paragraph, in the LEAD, about his mendacity??? That's simply impossible; there is way too much else to say about him and his 70 years in the spotlight. A well-sourced sentence in the lead is all we can do; there isn't room for anything more. We do have a whole section in the text on the subject; that is enough for "history". USER 5 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• The proposed language is woefully inadequate to describe the core defining essence of the man, and if this language is adopted there will be some who will insist the matter is settled for all time and can never be revisited. If lede length is of concern, other parts of the lede can be trimmed/eliminated to make room for the most important aspect of his essence. This article must not be hijacked by a small cabal of partisan hacks who are in denial of reality. To allow them to succeed in this is to cowardly succumb to gaslighting. There, I said it. commenter two 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. "Unprecedented" is not a WP:WEASEL word. It is word that describes something that has never happened before. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must rely on our multiple reliable sources that tell us that Trump's lying is unprecedented. There is no serious dispute of that fact. Nominator 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. This is the nicest possible way Wikipedia can describe Trump's penchant for porky pies. UsEr 4 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. USER 5 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Almost support – I prefer the "record number" wording currently suggested in the RfC, rather than the "unprecedented" word, which has been much abused. (Remember "unpresidented" tweets?) Individual Won 21:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I state my rationale further up. U 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as both confusing the topic of free coverage, and as an unjustified OR conflation. Make it a second sentence that he has been criticised during his presidency for “thousands” and you're drawing language of RS... But this just seems a creative writing drill, debating personal ideals and posturing rather than going after close PARAPHRASE of what most convey. Cheers Editor A 01:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Editor A What does "confusing the topic of free coverage" mean and in what part of the proposed text do you think is OR? Also, you mention that you prefer a "close PARAPHRASE". What would your version of that look like? Nominator 13:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominator The line is WP:OR as a WP:SYNTH mangling of disconnected items. This confuses or rather loses the long-standing message of 'extensive free coverage due to controversial statements led to his nomination' ... Though the wording on that after committee/consensus had wound up not so clear back when. The directive for close PARAPHRASE is a procedural one, the exact language of a notional second line depends on the topic of most WEIGHT and sources used. In that remark I was saying this thread seems crafting what should be said on inspaniduals arguing, rather than on trying to honestly portray what the body of RS chose to say. Cheers Editor A 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I slightly prefer record number. But, that won't make it. Unprecedented is clearly DUE and supported by a preponderance of RS. Another User. 01:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per a lot of comments above; using words like or terms like "most lies/inaccuracies" or "unprecedented number" is a bad idea, b/c a person or statement's level of "truthfulness" is a fundamentally subjective thing and hence can't be quantified. It's like saying "The Mona Lisa had an unprecedented amount of beauty". We can all agree the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But since there's no yard stick to measure beauty with, you can't really say it's the "most beautiful" or that its beauty is "unprecedented". User 3 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• User 3, you say "no yard stick". Seriously? We aren't talking about beauty. Members of the international union of fact checkers aren't expressing their opinions. They are documenting hard statistics. These are often countable things. When someone lies, it's relatively easy to document that fact, and Trump's untruthfulness is off-the-charts bad. He makes shit up, twists and misuses facts, and tells outright falsehoods constantly, quite literally. There is hardly a paragraph of anything he says which doesn't show a disregard for truth, so much so that we now "assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". Any editor who doesn't start with that assumption lacks competence to edit American politics here. Period. They aren't following RS, and they should. That's a pretty basic requirement for editing controversial subjects. Does anyone here dispute that?

It's OK to Say the President Is More Dishonest Than Other Politicians. It's the Truth. EDitor C 18:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User 3 Reliable sources routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number" to objectively describe Trump's thousands of falsehoods. Pretending for a moment that we should not faithfully reflect those source in this article, what would your alternative proposal be for describing Trump's well-documented habit of frequently making false and misleading statements? Nominator 19:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

EDitor C: What COMMENTER I said. Please strike. Also, we do not "assume Trump is lying and work backwards" and nobody should. Each statement should be approached objectively.

User 3: There may not be a yardstick to measure beauty, but there is one to measure truth or falsehood. That is not subjective, it is objective. It's called facts, the real world. We have not yet entered the "post-fact era," although some people seem to be trying to take us there. If Trump says "I never said X" and there is video of him saying X, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "several previous presidents told me they should have put up a wall", and all the living previous previous presidents say they did no such thing, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "Democrats said they prefer steel over concrete" or "There has been rioting against sanctuary cities in California" or "there are a record number of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border", those are falsehoods. USER 5 19:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

EDitor C - Kid, I've been reading fact-checking articles since you were diapers. Sit down and suck on your thumb a little more while the grown-ups talk.

Nominator - re "routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number"" - Citation needed. re "what would your alternative proposal be" - I would do very little to change the current wording. Maybe change "many of his public statements were controversial or false." to "many of his public statements were controversial and received widespread criticism for being misleading or false.". That wording would basically mean that we (i.e. WP) aren't taking a position on his statement's "truthfulness", but merely noting that others have. Or maybe "His campaign generated a high level of controversy and many of his public statements received widespread criticism for being misleading or false."? Semi-colons are clunky grammar. And saying "received extensive free media coverage" seems silly and self-evident. Which campaign hasn't received extensive free media coverage?

USER 5 - re "there is one to measure truth or falsehood" - Most regular fact checkers use "scales" (e.g. the Pinocchio scale) to rate lies. That in and of itself is an admission that most statements aren't completely false or completely true, but instead exist somewhere in the ether of "truthiness". And I agree with you that certain things are objectively false. But you've got to consider that there are "big" lies and "little" lies. For example, me saying that I'm 6'8" versus, say, Mitt Romney/Trump saying they've paid taxes at a rate comparable to most Americans. Both of those are essentially objectively false, but lying about your height on the internet probably makes you less of liar than lying to the American people about whether you've paid taxes. Most folks grade fibs not just on the basis of whether they're true/false, but also on the basis of the impact of the lie. User 3 13:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User 3, when EDitor C made some inappropriate personal comments to you, he later struck them out. I suggest you do the same. USER 5 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. User 3 didn't deserve that, and I'm very sorry I let loose on him. EDitor C 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

EDitor C You seem to have missed sentences 3&4 with your striking. User 3 Seconding USER 5's request for you to strike as well. -- UNINVOLVED 22:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. User 3 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

How about the frequency and repetition of falsehoods? Trump averaged 15 falsehoods a day in 2018, he made 125 false or misleading statements in about 120 minutes, The Fact Checker has not identified statements from any other current elected official who meets the [Bottomless Pinocchio] standard other than Trump, 14 statements made by the president immediately qualify for the list. commenter two 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Look.... I'm not disagreeing that the scope and scale of the fibbing has increased. I'm just arguing that we shouldn't use adjectives which are quantifiable. We shouldn't say that "person A is a bigger liar than person B". It raises too many sticky questions about how to measure fibbing, which as I've said, is a somewhat subjective thing. User 3 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've repeatedly proposed a tight lede paragraph with some "meat" on it, and it's been repeatedly rejected, and we still can't even reach consensus on a single sentence with no meat. commenter two 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Trumps alleged distortions are mostly small taters compared to the whoppers of past Presidents, so number of lies is really just a silly game of distraction for those suffering from TDS. I mean, who can beat "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "if you like your health care plan you can keep it" or "fast and furious began under the bush administration" and I do not see thousand (s) or even 500 mentioned here.--User 2. 16:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this small taters? "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea...I have solved that problem...sleep well tonight!" North Korea is moving ahead with its ballistic missile program at 16 hidden bases that have been identified in new commercial satellite images, a network long known to American intelligence agencies but left undiscussed as President Trump claims to have neutralized the North's nuclear threat. commenter two 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Who can beat "if you like your health care plan you can keep it"? Trump can beat that one,, easily. During the campaign he promised a "big, beautiful health care plan that would take care of everybody."[2] In May 2017 he tweeted "...healthcare plan is on its way. Will have much lower premiums & deductibles while at the same time taking care of pre-existing conditions!"[3] He's been president for two years now. Where is that health care plan? USER 5 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What about "I did not pay hush money to that woman" (paraphrasing here)? Just because Trump repeats falsehoods so much that each inspanidual one cannot be replayed over and over doesn't mean they aren't whoppers. An Admin 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I dunno...when a President lies so BIGLy he is impeached by the House that is as big as it gets...or lies so BIGly they are forced to resign. Let me know when Trump tops that. Some folks have nothing better to do than use their positions as "news writers" and "scholars" LOL to count every time someone doesn't confess to cutting down the cherry tree as the end of the world lie to beat all lies!--User 2. 14:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User 2. - Presidents get impeached for criminal activity. Lying isn't a crime. Unless you do it under oath of course (e.g. Clinton). User 3 15:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. While other presidents and politicians also have made some false statements, the level of dishonesty here is unprecedented, and there is no shortage of reliable sources confirming that. Not Brad. 16:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Amply and exhaustively supported by large number of high-quality sources; biographically and historically significant (indeed crucial). Claims that "all politicians lie" and thus we should omit this content just don't hold any water from the encyclopedic point of view; we gotta follow the sources on this. Neutrality 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support well supported by numerous sources including academic ones. (e.g [4]). An Admin 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why that would go in the lead. I don't think it's of neutral tone there. I mean, we all know he lies when his lips are moving but that's not what we're here for. It's obviously fit for a section. CleverNameHere 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. Regarding some of the objections above, neutrality means reflecting what the sources say; trying to ignore the sources to produce a neutral tone is WP:FALSEBALANCE and isn't how we're supposed to write articles. If it's widely-reported with a degree of WP:RS coverage that clearly makes it a defining part of his reputation and identity - and I think the sources support this - then it belongs in the lead, even if it makes him look bad. Neutrality and tone are about reporting the facts in an even and impartial voice, not about weighting them to avoid covering bad things about people. Wikipedian 21:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose How can one even know such a thing? Did someone go back and fact-check every statement made by every president since Washington? User 7 18:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lots of editors (although not a majority at this point) appear to be hung up on words like "record" and "unprecedented" because they are hard to prove, even though reliable sources frequently use both. Ordinarily, we go with what the sources say, and "unprecedented" appears to be the current choice for most editors; however, it occurs to me that there may be a way to satisfy both "sides" of the issue:

Trump has made a numerous number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, such that fact checkers have described it as "unprecedented".

Doing it this way explicitly assigns the "unprecedented" label to sources that will be found in the body of the article, and also explains why it is necessary, without using Wikipedia's voice to do it. This may be unnecessary, but I had the idea and thought I'd just put it out there anyway. Thoughts? UsEr 4 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Has there ever been a US president that was completely honest? !voter 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, but Trump is the first US president to have "dishonesty" as his most notable characteristic. UsEr 4 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have been OK with saying it in Wikipedia's voice and I still prefer ALT1, UPDATE: I now prefer USER 1.'s ALT3, as it is straightforward and supported by regular news sources as well as just fact checkers. But I could accept this - except for "a numerous number". Ugh! Maybe "a large number"? Or maybe "a yuuuge number?" 0;-D How about "Trump has made so many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency that fact checkers have described it as "unprecedented". or "According to fact checkers, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency". USER 5 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like a decent idea and I would support it. I am not sure how others will feel though, might invoke scare quotes. It is hard to say it is not something RS have stated as a major part of him but I am not sure it is his most notable characteristic. COMMENTER I 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is better than the other proposals, but why the obsession with the word "unprecedented"? User 7 18:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We try to be concise, especially in the lead, but that can be taken too far and I feel the need to relax it a bit in this case. And "unprecedented" is not a word but rather a concept, so let's not put it in quotation marks nor get all wrapped up about how often the actual word occurs in sources. We're allowed to paraphrase sources.

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

USER 1. 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I like that. This is now my preferred wording. And I like the addition of "in American politics"; we are not comparing him to the rest of the world which has seen some notorious liars. One possible tweak: it's not "the statements" themselves that have been documented by fact-checkers, it's "their falsity". USER 5 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Or misleadingness, hence the problem. Even if you could bring yourself to make it as wonky as "The falsity or misleadingness of the statements", it's not even a word in some dictionaries, and flagged by my spell-checker. I'd rather trust the reader to figure it out. USER 1. 19:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

How about "The veracity of these statements has been documented...," or something like that? UsEr 4 20:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't split the hair any finer to say that it's the lack of veracity that has been documented. Or inaccuracy. Still trusting the reader—most who read this kind of article have a general idea of what fact-checkers do, and the rest can follow the link. USER 1. 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. "Falsity" is the right word, but it's not common. "Mendacity" would by my preferred word. I suppose "infidelity" works too, but that might be confused with Trump's other problem! UsEr 4 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your love lasted only three minutes, but that's more love than I received in all of 2018. Counting my blessings. USER 1. 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd still accept it as originally proposed. I'm just chipping in to the refinement USER 5 was looking for. UsEr 4 22:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, let's blame USER 5. USER 1. 22:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to take blame for things; I think of it as a public service. Actually I suppose words like "falsity" and "mendacity" do violate the old rule: Eschew obfuscation! For that matter, phenomenon is another. Now I'll be singing "Phenomena" all day. USER 5 00:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - best proposal so far. Editor 6 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I love this version. Congratulations on squaring the circle, USER 1.! I agree with Editor 6 - definitely the best proposal so far. Answers every conceivable need and complaint we've had. UsEr 4 20:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support about time someone decided to make it NPOV Editor B. 22:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This is as good as or better than any of the previous proposals. It addresses 90% of my concerns, and seems to be workable compromise. Nominator 23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per me. USER 1. 01:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not notable for the lead. Surely not in the wording provided. Phenomenon? Unprecedented? Once again, the sources have looked at every single thing the man has said and has taken even the smallest exaggeration and turned it into some massive falsehood.--User 2. 01:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  An excellent example of the kind of reasoning forbidden by Wikipedia content policy. We. Do. Not. Second-guess. Reliable. Sources. Period. But I could be wrong; feel free to drop a link to the policy that says we can disregard what reliable sources say because we think they are biased against the subject. USER 1. 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  The falsehoods have three characteristics: frequency, magnitude and repetition. In all three characteristics, inspanidually and collectively, the phenomenon is unprecedented. No one turns a small exaggeration into a massive falsehood, but the frequency and repetition of falsehoods collectively demonstrate a persistent pattern.commenter two 02:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support DUE, amply covered by RS, and as succinct as we're likely to get. Another User. 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Accurate, even if a rather vague word. He's in a category of his own, so far beyond all other known liars that fact checkers and social scientists who specialize in studying liars have never seen anyone like him:

Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."^[1] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".^[2]

EDitor C 04:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - pretty prose, but same issues or worse - still not LEAD, still an OR mashup that loses the prior campaign narrative which was supported. It is two stories, not one. This just added more words of OR. Cheers Editor A 06:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per comments above; oppose any use of the word "unprecedented" as unverifiable. User 3 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see where the inaccurate or unverifiable part is. The President of the United States being a habitual blatant liar is notable, belongs in the lead, and the wording is supported by a plethora of reliable sources. REDACTED 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a good compromise with attribution on a certainly DUE feature on this presidency. user8 03:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice, although it's wordy (a future thread can and probably will decide how to condense it, if it is implemented). S1lent 22:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is better than the other proposals, but why the obsession with the word, "unprecedented". Just because the popular press of the day engages in hyperbole doesn't mean that Wikipedia should, too. User 7 18:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  User 7 Wikipedia policy says nothing about compensating for media bias, sensationalism, hyperbole, or various other things. The word "unprecedented" fairly describes what is widely said in reliable sources, some of which use other words to say essentially the same thing. That's where our thinking should end, per policy. USER 1. 19:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  First, you're wrong. That's why scholarly articles published in respected, peer-reviewed journals are considered superior to the popular press. Second, we're here to write a responsible encyclopedia article. You're certainly free to turn off your brain and mindlessly regurgitate everything published in the press, but I am not. User 7 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Third, just because something is published in a news outlet doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. As editors, we have editorial discretion on what we choose to include and not include. Fourth, I would argue that unless a source explains its methodology (dating back to Washington) on how it arrived at that conclusion, it is not reliable for that claim. User 7 20:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, who needs to conform with unreliable "reliable sources" when we have editorial discretion? Let's all just advocate for incorporation of our respective personal analyses and viewpoints. Majority wins. USER 1. 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

USER 1. offered a neutral version indeed, but still a tad verbose. I can't resist applying my concision hatchet™:

As documented by fact-checkers, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, an unprecedented occurrence in American politics.

This proposal also avoids the sensationalist "phenomenon", and I don't think we need to attribute the "unprecedented" qualifier to "the media". Individual Won 02:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - a tad verbose - 30% more words. Yawn. I can't resist - So work on self-control. sensationalist "phenomenon" - Merriam and Webster differ with that interpretation of the word. I don't think we need to attribute - Me either, but it significantly improves the chances of a consensus. USER 1. 03:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Nope - Prefer the USER 1. version above. UsEr 4 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not bad, but I still favor the USER 1. version. Informing readers about Trump's historically unprecedented lying is worth a few extra words. Nominator 13:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support Would fully support if the word "unprecedented" is dropped. This as a viable compromise and far better than previous versions offered. Succinct, to the point and lacking of sensationalist wording more appropriate for CNN or other Trump-loathing shitty media.--User 2. 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

These continuing editorial slurs are becoming disruptive. Another User. 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, yet others can repeatedly call the subject of this BLP every nasty thing possible and pretend to be editing or commenting neutrally.--User 2. 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose not npov but would Support

  As documented by fact-checkers, Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, and the media have widely described it as unprecedented in American politics.

  Editor B. 15:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not seem neutral, and wording seems to be saying no politician ever made misleading statements before. But mostly this still has issues of mashing two different things together and making OR. Cheers Editor A 06:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, why the obsession with the word, "unprecedented"? Just because the popular press of the day engages in hyperbole doesn't mean that Wikipedia should, too. User 7 18:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)