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.

12,754 published reviews in this topic

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: Ramadoss challenged to MK Stalin

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigates a Facebook post that presented S. Ramadoss as offering to leave politics if it were proved that the Murassoli site was not Panchami land, and attributed to him a crude comparison involving his mother. It says the post was published by the account “MKS For CM” on November 19, 2019, using Ramadoss’s photograph. The review distinguishes that viral image’s wording from the dispute that was actually unfolding between Ramadoss and M.K. Stalin. As background to the post, the review describes allegations that the DMK newspaper Murassoli’s office in Kodambakkam, Chennai, stood on Panchami land. It says Ramadoss had commented on the issue and Stalin had responded by releasing patta documents, prompting controversy. The review also points to Ramadoss’s October 17, 2019 post about the land dispute; the excerpt reproduces his criticism of the handling of the land, rather than the alleged pledge or the statement about his mother. The review’s conclusion is that the politicians had exchanged challenges and criticism, but that Ramadoss did not make the specific statement attributed to him in the Facebook post. It says it found no report of that statement in any media outlet. The excerpt does not describe a search protocol or provide a comprehensive account of the media outlets checked, so its conclusion should be understood as the fact-check’s reported finding, not as independently documented proof that no such report existed. It adds that the land issue was before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes at the time.

FACTLYPolitics & government

Narendra Modi sweeping the floor

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a social-media image said to show Narendra Modi sweeping the floor before he became India’s prime minister. Its investigation reports that reverse-image searches found similar versions of the photograph in which the person’s face differed from the one in the circulating image. That comparison raised a concern that the image had been altered, but the review also describes a separate piece of evidence addressing who was pictured.

Fact CrescendoPolitics & government

Claim: H Raja criticized Arjun Sampath

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigated a social-media screenshot purporting to show H Raja criticizing Arjun Sampath. The alleged tweet said it was painful to think that the Vedas would come from Sampath’s mouth, and referred to a ritual involving Thirumavalavan. The review says the screenshot was shared on Facebook by Kampuli Ayubkhan on November 21, 2019. Its account of the allegation and the post’s circulation appears in the passage describing the screenshot and its contents. (S1: “இந்த பதிவை, Kampuli Ayubkhan என்பவர் 2019 நவம்பர் 21ம் தேதி வெளியிட்டுள்ளார்.”) The review describes checking H Raja’s Twitter activity against the alleged timing. It reports that Sampath had attended H Raja’s daughter’s wedding on November 20, but that H Raja posted no tweet on November 21; the review says his next post after November 20 was on November 22. It also reports searching Google for evidence that H Raja had made the statement elsewhere, but finding no such report. (S1: “நவம்பர் 21ம் தேதி அவர் எந்த ஒரு ட்வீட்டையும் வெளியிடவில்லை. நவம்பர் 20ம் தேதிக்குப் பிறகு, 22ம் தேதிதான் அவர் பதிவிட்டிருந்தார்.”) The review’s decisive comparison was between the account shown in the screenshot and H Raja’s identified Twitter account. It gives the latter as @HRajaBJP and the screenshot account as @echarajabjp. It says the latter account, though created in 2018 and bearing H Raja’s picture, had published no posts. On that basis, the review concluded that H Raja had not posted the alleged tweet and that the screenshot was fabricated. (S1: “எச்.ராஜாவின் ட்விட்டர் பக்கமானது H Raja @HRajaBJP என்று இருந்தது. ஆனால், நாம் ஆய்வுக்கு எடுத்துக்கொண்ட ஃபேஸ்புக் பதிவில் உள்ள ட்விட்டர் ஐடி-யோ, அதில், H Raja @echarajabjp என்று இருந்தது.”; “2018ம் ஆண்டு அந்த பக்கம் உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. ஆனால், இதுவரை அதில் எந்த ஒரு பதிவும் வெளியாகவில்லை.”)

FACTLYPolitics & government

Kanhaiya Kumar giving a speech before a map with few states of India shown as a part of Pakistan.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns an image presented as showing Kanhaiya Kumar giving a speech in front of a map that places Kashmir and Gujarat within Pakistan. FACTLY reports that the image was altered: its comparison with an image found through a reverse-image search showed Kanhaiya Kumar in a similar scene but without a map behind him. The review also describes finding a video of Kumar giving a speech while wearing the same shirt and holding a pen in his right hand, as in the circulated image. It reports that no map appears in the background at any point in that video. These comparisons support the review’s conclusion that the map was added to the image rather than present at the speech.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturPolitics & government

Der damalige Bundesinnenminister Otto Schily soll in einem Schreiben aus dem Jahr 2004 die Bundesrepublik für «völkerrechtlich de jure erloschen» erklärt haben. Das jedenfalls ist der Inhalt eines Briefes, der seit Jahren online kursiert

Publisher’s rating: Der Brief ist eine Fälschung.

The claim concerns an online-circulating letter attributed to then interior minister Otto Schily, supposedly stating that Germany had ceased to exist under international law. The review says Schily was interior minister from 1998 to 2005, but that he “never wrote a letter like the one presented.” The evidence therefore addresses the particular document and its attribution, rather than merely discussing similar claims about Germany’s status. (S1: “Der Sozialdemokrat Otto Schily war von 1998 bis 2005 Innenminister in der rot-grünen Regierung. Einen Brief wie den vorliegenden hat er allerdings nie verfasst.”) In response to an inquiry from the German Press Agency, a spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of the Interior said the letter was “obviously not a genuine letter” from the former minister and pointed to its content and style. The review also notes that the letter’s stated date, February 14, 2004, fell on a Saturday, which it describes as unusual for such correspondence. These details support the review’s conclusion about the document’s authenticity; the excerpt does not describe forensic testing or identify who created it. (S1: “Auf eine Anfrage der Deutschen Presse-Agentur antwortete ein Sprecher des Bundesinnenministeriums: «Bei dem Brief handelt es sich offensichtlich nicht um ein echtes Schreiben des ehemaligen Bundesministers des Innern. Auch für Außenstehende dürfte nach Inhalt und Stil des Schreibens daran eigentlich kein Zweifel bestehen.»”; “Der 14. Februar 2004 war kein Werktag, sondern ein Samstag.”)