Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Politics & government fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about politics & government. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

12,746 published reviews in this topic

Factcrescendo ThailandPolitics & government

ปูตินคุกเข่าให้กับสี จิ้นผิง

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examined a social-media image said to show Vladimir Putin kneeling and kissing Xi Jinping’s hand during Xi’s March 20, 2023 visit to Russia. It describes the image circulating alongside a post claiming that Putin had knelt to Xi, and says the same image had also appeared on Twitter from March 20. The review’s conclusion concerns that specific image, not whether the two leaders met: it says the image was fabricated and may have been AI-generated. The publisher reports using reverse-image search but finding no reliable source for the image. It also relays observations from a DW.com examination: Putin’s shoes appeared unusually large, his lower legs elongated, his head disproportionate to his body, and both leaders’ ears looked misshapen; the hand of the man on the left also appeared to merge unnaturally. These are described as signs that the image may have been generated using AI, not as proof of a known creator or production method. The review further says that images and videos from the leaders’ actual meeting, published by reliable news sources, did not show them in the alleged pose. It points to differences between the circulated image and material from the event: the backgrounds differ, and Xi’s clothing does not match. According to the review, both leaders appeared before the media on March 20 in black suits, whereas Xi’s suit in the disputed image is navy blue. Together, the reported visual irregularities and comparison with event coverage support the conclusion that the image does not document Putin kneeling to Xi.

FACTLYPolitics & government

1993 photo showing PM Narendra Modi posing along with Gujarat conman Kiran Patel.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a photo said to show Narendra Modi with Gujarat conman Kiran Patel in 1993. FACTLY identifies the man standing beside Modi, with his hands in his pockets, as G. Kishan Reddy, not Patel. It says the photograph was taken in 1994, when Modi visited the United States at the invitation of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL).

Factcheck LabPolitics & government

中國突然要求在地圖標註中俄邊境的8個地名時,除使用俄式發音的譯名外再括註中國舊稱。

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The claim arose from reports in February 2023 that China had suddenly ordered maps to show Chinese historical names alongside the Russian-style names of eight places near the China–Russia border. The review examined the publication history of the relevant map rules, rather than assessing the political intentions attributed to the requirement. It notes that China’s Ministry of Natural Resources published the 2023 *Specifications for the Representation of Public Maps* on February 14, and that Article 14 lists the eight place names and their parenthetical names. The review says this provision matched the descriptions circulating in the reports. The central question was whether this was a new requirement. The review compared Article 14 with Article 17 of the 2003 *Several Provisions on the Representation of Public Map Contents*. Both provisions list the same eight Russian place names and the same Chinese names to be added in parentheses; both also exclude Chinese-pinyin and foreign-language maps. The 2023 document repealed the 2003 rules, but the review explains that it consolidated and revised earlier provisions. Thus, publication of the updated document in 2023 did not establish that the eight-name requirement had just been introduced. The review also describes checks of older examples: a 2014 approved world map, a Chinese government notice about a 2009 incident near Vladivostok, and a Chinese consulate page that used a Russian place name with its Chinese historical name. It concludes that describing the rule as a sudden new announcement omitted the earlier rule and could mislead readers. The review expressly excludes claims about the government’s intentions from its scope.