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.

12,752 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYPolitics & government

Photo of AIMIM party President Asaduddin Owaisi sitting alongside RSS President Mohan Bhagwat

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a photo circulated as showing AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi sitting alongside RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at an event. FACTLY reports that the image was altered: the person seated beside Bhagwat in the original photograph was Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, not Owaisi. The review says the image was presented as a recent meeting, but traces the underlying photograph to an event on 20 December 2021. To investigate, FACTLY says it performed a reverse image search on the circulated image. That search led to a similar photograph in a Times of India article, whose caption identifies Yadav as the person looking on while Union minister Arjun Ram Meghwal greets Bhagwat. FACTLY compared that image with the one in the claim and reports that the original shows Yadav beside Bhagwat, establishing that the claimed Owaisi image was morphed. The event was hosted at the official residence of Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, where Bhagwat and Yadav were chatting. FACTLY also reports that Meghwal shared the original photo on his official social-media account. These details support the identification of the source image and distinguish the genuine event photograph from the altered version circulated with Owaisi in Yadav’s place.

dpaPolitics & government

Der "Ahnenpass" der Nazis war nötig, um Zugang zu Museen, öffentlichen Gebäuden, Theatern, Schulen und Arbeitsplatz zu erhalten.

Publisher’s rating: Der «Ahnenpass» der Nationalsozialisten war nicht die Voraussetzung für den Besuch von Schulen, Museen oder anderen öffentlichen Einrichtungen. Dieser Nazi-Ausweis hatte wie der «Gesundheitspass» einen anderen Hintergrund und eine andere Funktion.

The claim circulated in German Facebook posts during the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that Hitler introduced an “Ahnenpass” in 1933 and that it was needed to access public places, schools and work. The post showed a Hitler Youth “Gesundheitspass.” The review distinguishes these two documents: it says the pictured health document was not the ancestry document named in the post, and that the health pass was meant to collect information about young people’s physical capacity in the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls. It had to be shown to a doctor, not to gain access to public life. The review describes a different, coercive role for proof of ancestry. Under the April 7, 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, public employees had to establish Aryan descent to keep their jobs; restrictions later covered other professions, including doctors and lawyers. The review says the Ahnenpass was one way to document ancestry for the “Ariernachweis” required of Germans under the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935. It was used for purposes such as joining Nazi organizations, marrying, or receiving honors—not as a general entry document for public venues. To assess the access claim, the review draws on the German Historical Museum’s description of the Ahnenpass and quotes historian Chantal Kesteloot, a specialist in the history of the Second World War and the Shoah at CegeSoma. She says it could serve employment and Nazi-affiliation purposes but was not required to enter museums, theatres or other public buildings. The review also notes that Jewish children’s access to schooling was restricted by other Nazi measures, rather than by an Ahnenpass entry requirement.

FACTLYPolitics & government

ఉత్తరప్రదేశ్ శ్రీ కాశీ విశ్వనాధ్ కారిడార్ ప్రారంభోత్సవ కార్యక్రమంలో ప్రధాని నరేంద్ర మోదీ దివ్యాంగురాలైన ఐఏఎస్ అధికారి ఆర్తి డోగ్రా కాళ్ళకు పాదాభివందనం చేస్తున్న దృశ్యం

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

המשרוקית של גלובסPolitics & government

עד דצמבר 2021 מעולם לא היה מקרה שחברת כנסת לאחר לידה לא קיבלה קיזוז

Publisher’s rating: דרוש הקשר

Shirley Pinto made the claim after giving birth and then attending a Knesset vote on December 15, 2021, less than a week after the birth. The investigation says the opposition refused to pair her, meaning she had to attend and vote. It examined whether this was truly the first time an MK after childbirth had not received a pairing arrangement, while distinguishing that question from whether a binding maternity-leave or pairing rule existed. The article says Knesset rules did not establish a binding procedure for pairing an MK on maternity leave. The clearest earlier counterexample identified was Tamar Zandberg in February 2020. According to the article’s account of media reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to pair her for a vote on Haim Katz’s immunity request, held less than 48 hours after she gave birth; Netanyahu nevertheless attended and voted. The Likud told Globes that Netanyahu “was not paired” and that the possibility had only been examined. The article therefore treats Zandberg as not having received a pairing in that vote, while noting that her absence did not affect the result and that she was not forced to attend. The investigation also considered Tzipi Hotovely’s July 2018 attendance at a vote while shortly after giving birth. It checked contemporaneous reporting and the Knesset debate record, but found no firm evidence that she had requested a pairing and been refused: an opposition account said she had not requested one, and the debate protocol contained no complaint about a refusal. The article’s conclusion is therefore qualified: Pinto’s case was described as the first in which an MK requested a pairing after giving birth and was refused, but Zandberg’s earlier vote means the broader claim that no such MK had ever gone without a pairing needs context.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

अभी अखिलेश यादव मुख्यमंत्री नहीं है तब इनका जातिगत दम्भ और घमंड देखिए क्योंकि उत्तर प्रदेश के डिप्टी सीएम केशव प्रसाद मौर्य एक बेहद पिछड़ी मौर्य यानी कोईरी बिरादरी से आते हैं इसलिए अखिलेश यादव उन्हें डिप्टी सीएम बनाए जाने पर सवाल उठा रहे हैं

Publisher’s rating: False

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaPolitics & government

FACT CHECK: අනුර කුමාරගේ මීඩියා කැම්පේන් එක දැන් කරන්නේ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ බවට කුමාර් ගුණරත්නගෙන් ප්‍රකාශයක් ?

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examined a social-media post attributing to Kumar Gunaratnam a series of remarks: that Basil Rajapaksa was running Anura Kumara’s media campaign, that pro-Rajapaksa outlets were giving Kumara more opportunities, and that they were doing so on Basil’s instructions. It presented the post as implying Gunaratnam made the remarks during a television programme. The review’s conclusion was that he did not make those attributed statements. Evidence describes the post and its attribution: “කුමාර් ගුණරත්නම් විසින් රූපවාහිනි වැඩසටහනකදී පැවසූ බවට හඟවමින් මෙම සටහන ෆේස්බුක් ඔස්සේ පළක කර තිබුණු අයුරු පහතින්.” To check the attribution, the review examined the Sirasa channel’s *10 Questions* programme, in which Gunaratnam had appeared the previous day. It reports that the programme’s host did not ask him about Basil Rajapaksa, and that Gunaratnam did not raise Basil in his answers. On media coverage, the review distinguishes his actual comments from the claim: he spoke about his party’s activity and access to media for communicating public opinion, but did not say that pro-Rajapaksa channels were giving the JVP more opportunities. The review states: “එහිදී ඉහත සමාජ මාධ්‍ය සටහනේ දැක්වෙන පරිදි කිසිදු ප්‍රකාශයක් කුමාර් ගුණරත්නම් මහතා විසින් සිදු කර නොතිබුණු බවට අපට නිරීක්ෂණය වූවා.” The review also says it asked the programme’s host, senior journalist Wasantha Masinghe, about the post; according to the article, he confirmed that Gunaratnam had not made any of the statements attributed to him during the programme. It adds that the reviewers found no mainstream-media report showing he had made the statements on another occasion. Those points support the review’s conclusion about the attribution, while the described programme check specifically addresses the television appearance invoked by the post. The article’s conclusion states: “අපගේ විමර්ශනයෙන් පෙන්වා දෙනු ලබන්නේ, කුමාර් ගුණරත්නම් විසින් සිරස නාලිකාවේ වැඩසටහනකට එක්වෙමින් “අනුර කුමාරගේ මීඩියා කැම්පේන් එක දැන් කරන්නේ බැසිල් රාජපක්ෂ. දැන් අනුරට වැඩිපුරම අවස්ථාව දෙන්නේ රාජපක්ෂලට ගැති මාධ්‍ය නාලිකා. එදා රාජපක්ෂට ආවඩපු අය අද ආවඩන්නේ අනුරට ඒ බැසිල්ගේ උපදෙස් මත. මේ මොහොතේ අනුරගේ සාර්ථකත්වය වැඩිපුරම පතන්නේ බැසිල්.” යනුවෙන් නොපැවසූ බවයි.”

המשרוקית של גלובסPolitics & government

לכל סיעות הקואליציה הובטח סגן שר, ותקווה חדשה היא האחרונה לנצל זאת

Publisher’s rating: לא נכון

The review examined Meir Yitzhak-Halevi’s claim that coalition negotiations had decided every faction would receive a deputy minister, and that all factions except his own, New Hope, had already appointed one. To check the promise, the investigation reviewed the coalition agreements signed on June 11, 2021, by the eight parties. It found that only four agreements provided for deputy ministers: those with Yesh Atid, Yamina, New Hope and Ra’am. The agreements with Yisrael Beiteinu, Blue and White, Meretz and Labor contained no such provision. Yisrael Beiteinu was instead promised an additional ministerial role in the Finance Ministry. The investigation also compared those written commitments with appointments made after the government was formed. Yesh Atid and Yamina filled deputy-minister positions, while Ra’am had not appointed one, despite its contractual entitlement. Blue and White’s Alon Schuster and Meretz’s Yair Golan became deputy ministers even though their parties’ agreements did not provide for those roles. The review therefore found that deputy-minister appointments were not promised to every faction, and New Hope was not simply the last faction to exercise a universal entitlement. In response, Yitzhak-Halevi said he meant that all deputy-minister positions agreed in the coalition agreements had been filled, and listed current appointees. The review rejected that clarification too: Ra’am’s promised position remained vacant, while some of the people on his list—Schuster and Golan—held positions that were not specified in their parties’ agreements.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaPolitics & government

FACT CHECK: අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය ධුරයෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්වෙයි?

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examined a social-media post claiming that Mahinda Rajapaksa had resigned as prime minister “a short while ago.” It says the post had circulated again and that the investigation checked whether major media outlets had reported a resignation. The publisher reports finding no such report and notes that the Parliament website still listed Rajapaksa as prime minister at the time of its check. The fact-check also describes contacting Rajapaksa’s media secretary, Rohan Weliwita, who said the claim was not true, and Namal Rajapaksa, who likewise rejected reports that his father would leave the post. The investigation traced the circulating post to an earlier appearance in 2018 and recounted that Rajapaksa signed a resignation letter on December 15 that year, after a period of political dispute over who was prime minister. It therefore identified the old post’s recirculation as the source of confusion behind the claim being assessed. A later update in the article reports that Rajapaksa submitted a resignation letter to the president on May 9, 2022, after violence in Colombo and the imposition of a nationwide curfew. That subsequent event is distinct from the post the review investigated: the review’s finding concerns the claim as it circulated in the earlier context, not whether Rajapaksa resigned at a later date.