[dinkumthinkum]

But, respectfully, even you, in your quest to cite facts require pointing out that your "facts" are not facts at all. The person in question, Trump, was not sentenced and therefore not "convicted" of anything. But this false claim is repeated a lot even by supposed "fact-checkers". Even the rest of that same paragraph is not made up of facts but you are trying to support some vague claim with appeals to things like "his own people wouldn't lie for him even though they loved him" or some such; you're bolstering a negative sentiment but not really clearly delineating anything resembling "facts". That's the issue that is being discussed and addressed by Meta at this point. Sure, we can call high schools physics problems as reflecting facts of nature, that's nice, but this is not what all the fuss is about.

[petersellers]

> The person in question, Trump, was not sentenced and therefore not "convicted" of anything.

Sentencing != conviction. Conviction is the legal finding of guilt, sentencing is the appropriation of punishment.

Given your excessive use of scarequotes around "facts", getting this simple fact wrong is ironic.

[dinkumthinkum]

That's a neat story.

"in United States practice, conviction means a finding of guilt (i.e., a jury verdict or finding of fact by the judge) and imposition of sentence. If the defendant fled after the verdict but before sentencing, he or she has not been convicted,"

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/106159/if-someone-ha...

[petersellers]

Not true in New York, where this particular trial took place. From your own link:

  S 380.30 Time for pronouncing sentence.

  In general. Sentence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.
  Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
  (a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or
  (b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in article four hundred; or
  (c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.

So not only is sentencing distinct from conviction semantically, it's also distinct legally in the state of New York.

[monkey_monkey]

Well, he is now a convicted felon.

[StackRanker3000]

This is an instance where semantics are nothing more than, well, semantics.

The people who say that Trump has been ”convicted but not sentenced” actually mean that he’s been ”found guilty but not sentenced”, they just aren’t intimately familiar with legal terms of art.

If they simply say ”Donald Trump was found guilty but not sentenced” instead, they’ve silenced the nitpickers while still conveying the exact same message they intended to in the first place.

[claytongulick]

> This is an instance where semantics are nothing more than, well, semantics.

I'm hard pressed to think of an example of a fact that your statement wouldn't apply to.

[StackRanker3000]

Sometimes when people complain ”you’re just arguing semantics!”, the semantics do in fact need to be cleared up, because the words being used are confusing, or wrong in a way that’s preventing participants in the discussion from getting on the same page.

Here, no one is actually confused. Everyone knows and agrees that Trump was found guilty, but that he hasn’t been sentenced. The only sticking point is whether you can use the word ”convicted” to describe someone who is in that situation, and whether or not that’s the case doesn’t have any material effect on people’s understanding of reality. It’s just a matter of arguing over which words should be used, i.e. it’s just semantics.