copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2023-09-11): Did the NFL's ethics committee deny Colin Kaepernick's request to return to "active status" and suggest "he should go sell hair products"? No, that's not true: This claim comes from a satirical website that has a history of fabricating content surrounding popular topics, and that features a disclaimer stating, "Everything on this website is fiction." Lead Stories could not find evidence on Google News of any credible reporting that would substantiate the claim. The clair appeared in an article (archived here) published by The Dunning-Kruger Times on September 9, 2023, titled "NFL Refuses Kaepernick's Request for Active Status: 'He Should Sell Hair Products.'" The story opens: [...] There is no truth to the claim that the NFL refused a request by Kaepernick to return to "active status," and there's no evidence he ever made such a request. A Google News search of the keywords "NFL Refuses Kaepernick's Request for Active Status" yields no credible matching results.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2019-11-27): Kaepernick's camp maintained that he had been out of work for three full seasons for reasons nothing to do with football and everything to do with his politics regarding social justice and his on-field protests. Still, the NFL's strategy in approaching Kaepernick was to concentrate narrowly on football. To sources both outside the league office and the Kaepernick team, this was the NFL's first mistake; the only way to get Kaepernick and the league to trust each other was to confront their acrimonious history with diplomacy so both sides might more easily believe the other was entering the workout with legitimate motives. "To say we're going to make this about football is one of the dumbest things you can say," a source close to the situation says. "It's not a big deal, it's the whole deal, because the reason he's not playing isn't about football. Everyone knows he can play. It's the other stuff. You have to deal with the other stuff." [...] The NFL rejected the Kaepernick team's request to change the dates. The Kaepernick team thought the offer took on a "take it or leave it" characteristic. The tone of the call felt procedural. According to sources from the Kaepernick team, Gardi said he was not authorized to make alterations to the offer. He was, in effect, delivering a message.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2019-02-20): The NFL couldn't just get system arbitrator Stephen Burbank, a Penn law professor, to throw out the merits of Kaepernick's contentions. It had to spend countless dollars over roughly 16 months to methodically comply with brief after brief and request after request and go through this grievance process. Whether the payout to Kaepernick was measured in seven figures or eight figures, the full costs associated with it for the NFL– financially and from a PR nightmare standpoint – goes far beyond that. Ultimately, the NFL had to reckon with Kaepernick, and this case did not go away until the moment the quarterback was ready for it to do so. [...] Kaepernick, 31, is never going to get back those two years of his career. He had to trek around the country as the inquisition of NFL execs unfolded. He, too, had to pay a very real price in terms of the hours and resources required to contend for something that he, rightly, feels was about being blackballed for his politics, and not about football. And now, even the NFL can no longer argue that either; if there was no reason to settle, the league would not have settled. If there was no truth on Kaepernick's side, the lawyers would still be lawyering. This league, and these owners, don't make a habit out of throwing money away as all pursue Goodell's stated goal of pushing revenue beyond $20B a year.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2019-02-16): Surely, Kaepernick’s style of play wasn’t a fit for some coaches. Also, it is fair to surmise, his form of peaceful protest did not fit the styles of many other owners.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2019-02-19): Kaepernick Won. The NFL Lost. [...] I still doubt that Kaepernick will ever play in the NFL again, but the point of suing the NFL wasn’t necessarily about resuming his football career. It was about holding the league accountable for something that was entirely preventable. Though this legal battle with Kaepernick has been resolved, he isn’t going away either. The league will forever have to live with the fact that it was complicit in destroying someone’s career simply because he wished to bring attention to the injustices suffered by his people. If owners and Roger Goodell believe that they no longer will have to face questions about why Kaepernick isn’t in the league, they’re wrong. No matter what an arbitrator rules, how the NFL treated Kaepernick will always be the mistake they can never amend.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2018-08-30): Earlier this year, the NFL requested a summary judgment in the case, which basically meant that Kaepernick's legal team had to prove that there was enough evidence for things to move forward. The arbitrator overseeing the legal battle, Stephen Burbank, sided with Kaepernick's team on Thursday and refused to throw out the case. [...] Breaking news @Kaepernick7 pic.twitter.com/mAYhkRKwB9 — Mark Geragos (@markgeragos) August 30, 2018 "On August 28, 2018, the System Arbitrator denied the NFL's request that he dismiss Colin Kaepernick's complaint alleging that his inability to secure a player contract since becoming a free agent in March 2017 has been due to an agreement among team owners and the NFL that violates Article 17, Section 1 of the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA."
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2023-09-29): We've previously fact-checked other satirical claims about Kaepernick, like whether the NFL had refused his request for active status and said he should sell hair products instead.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2018-09-04): That history stands as a curious preamble to Nike’s decision to feature Colin Kaepernick, the erstwhile quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, who has not played professional football in nearly two years, as a face of the thirtieth-anniversary "Just Do It" campaign. This is partly about the prerogatives of success: in 1988, Nike was trying to reverse declining sales and was still building its standing in sports beyond track and field. In 2018, though domestic sales in the sports-goods industry have lagged recently, Nike is a globally dominant brand and a supplier of apparel to the same N.F.L. that has rejected Kaepernick since he decided to kneel during the national anthem at the start of a game, to protest injustice and police brutality. (Kaepernick filed a collusion grievance against the N.F.L., and the league requested a summary judgment; following an arbitrator’s ruling, last week, it will go to trial. On Tuesday, in response to the ad, the N.F.L. released a statement that read, in part, "The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.")
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2018-04-13): As if there were any doubt that the NFL was going to continue its blacklist against Colin Kaepernick, the former Super Bowl starting quarterback was once again denied an opportunity this week. This time, it was in Seattle, and there was none of the hemming and hawing about Kaepernick’s numbers not being good enough or his playstyle not being the right fit for the offense. No, instead, an NFL source told ESPN’s Adam Schefter that Seahawks officials cancelled Kaepernick’s workout after he refused to commit to ending his kneeling protests during the national anthem during the 2018 season. (Sure enough, on Friday, the Seahawks went ahead and found someone else for the job.) [...] The truth, though, is that the owners are not making business decisions when they refuse the services of men like Kaepernick and Reid. As Van Natta and Wickersham reported, the NFL’s major sponsors were not universally pro ban. In fact, at least one had threatened to drop its sponsorship of the league should it mandate the players to stand for the national anthem. If it was really about the bottom line, would the NFL have tried to buy out kneeling players for $100m in charitable contributions in 2017?
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2020-01-22): Corporate activism is every bit the oxymoron that corporate courage is, and at its core, the selling of Kaepernick as an inspirational figure without the accompanying action of denouncing the NFL and the reckless conduct of police or of taking a tangible business risk is to profit off dead black people. At the hands of the state. To look cool. To sell sneakers. To be on the right side of history but only at the slightest of first glances. [...] He remained equally present, committed to his Know Your Rights camps but curiously noncommittal as a public figure. What was missing was an emphasis on the continuing problem of dead black bodies at the hands of the state. The #TrueTo7 hashtag implied that justice for him was now the center of the story and not police officers being indemnified from their own police reports. In a little over a year Kaepernick had become an even more established part of the celebrity class, selling jerseys and hair-care products, with an agreement for a television show about his life with the director Ava DuVernay and, as of March 2019, a stunning streak of not having given a public interview in more than two years.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2019-10-09): The NFL announced the decision to have Maroon 5 headline the show after several months of controversy prompted by its response to Kaepernick’s national anthem protest. Kaepernick, who hasn’t played in an NFL game since the 2016 season, has said the NFL essentially blacklisted him over his protest.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2023-03-10): Kaepernick revealed that when he had cornrows as a child, his mother said, "Your hair is not professional, you look like a little thug." [...] In the same interview, Kaepernick said he still has a desire to play football professionally. He hasn’t played in the NFL since 2016 after his refusal to stand for the national anthem ahead of games to protest police brutality and racial injustice while he was a San Francisco 49er sparked controversy.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2017-09-12): NFL players needed Kaepernick to defibrillate the notoriously fossilized league. And they are, with a new group of leaders ready to carry—carrying—his torch on the sidelines, sparked by the endless news cycle of racially motivated violence, of ethnic discrimination, of immigrant fearmongering. Jocelyn Benson, CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality, sees the sheer number of players still employed by the NFL—70 percent of whom are black, as of this time last year—as an activist advantage. "You’re going to see a diversity of tactics, opinions, priorities," she tells me, "and it’s great to see these players expand in the number of ways they’re using their voice to advance change." [...] Colin Kaepernick may never again play in the NFL. He also might, and if he does, protesting will be allowed. ("Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem," the NFL had to say for itself, for this story.) Either way, he’s opened the door, one that people—not players, people—like Michael Bennett are willing to walk through. It’s a dangerous door for America, one we aren’t supposed to walk through—and one we were never supposed to find.
Claim: NFL refused Kaepernick’s request play and told him to sell hair products instead (Viral post, 2023-09-09)
Evidence (2013-02-03): Part of me totally understands that meeting his first mother, now, when the pressure is on his passing arm, is more than he can handle. Kaepernick ought to be left alone to play the game. From our experience, from all we have read and known ourselves, we understand that the emotional impact of coming face-to-face with the woman who bore you and gave you up is boundless, unsettling, a double whammy to the heart and the head. People have written that they feel as if they are practically coming apart. Okay, we get that. Not now.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-03-19): Eligibility for government benefits, including any coronavirus stimulus payments, is not tied to completing the 2020 Census.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-04-07): Some people online have claimed that receiving the economic impact payment is contingent on filling out the United States 2020 census. This is not true, according to the United States Census Bureau.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2023-11-17): IR-2023-217, Nov. 17, 2023 WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is reminding those who may be entitled to the Recovery Rebate Credit to file a tax return and claim their money before it's too late. The vast majority of those eligible for Economic Impact Payments related to Coronavirus tax relief have already received them or claimed them through the Recovery Rebate Credit. The deadlines to file a return and claim the 2020 and 2021 credits are May 17, 2024, and April 15, 2025, respectively. The Recovery Rebate Credit is a refundable credit for those who missed out on one or more Economic Impact Payments. Economic Impact Payments, also referred to as stimulus payments, were issued in 2020 and 2021. The IRS estimates that some individuals and families are still eligible for the payment(s). However, taxpayers must first file a tax return to make their claim even if they had little or no income from a job, business or other source. Who is eligible? Generally, to claim the 2020 Recovery Rebate Credit, a person must: Have been a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident alien in 2020. Not have been a dependent of another taxpayer for 2020.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2023-05-11): More than 90% of potentially eligible individuals received pandemic-related stimulus payments but receipt varied across race and ethnic groups, according to recently published joint federal research.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2021-05-15): The federal stimulus money sent to millions of Americans over the past year is tax-free, but filing a 2020 return could help the estimated 8 million people who may have been eligible for a payment but missed out because the IRS had no way of reaching them. An online portal that allowed them to input their bank account information is no longer available – but they can file a 2020 return and claim the refundable Recovery Rebate Credit to receive the money. More than 2 million people have already gotten a new stimulus payment by filing a 2020 return, according to the IRS. Even those who did receive a stimulus payment could be eligible for more money once they file their 2020 return. Because stimulus checks were calculated using 2018 or 2019 income, those who lost their job in 2020 or otherwise saw their income fall from the year before may be able to claim some extra cash on their return and receive what the IRS is calling a "plus-up payment."
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2021-03-24): Americans are poised to receive a third round of stimulus checks through the new American Rescue Plan Act and data from the Census Bureau’s experimental Household Pulse Survey show past stimulus payments helped ease financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first round of COVID stimulus payments of up to $1,200 per adult and $500 per child began reaching households in April and May 2020.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-06-24): About 85.5% of respondents to the U.S. Census Bureau’s experimental Household Pulse Survey said they had received or expected someone in the household to receive an Economic Impact Payment or stimulus check.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2024-01-12): The Census Bureau announced that the deadline for people to complete the survey forms for their households is October 15, 2020. The deadline for the counting process has moved several times due to the pandemic. [...] To improve the response rate to the 2020 Census, the bureau also is considering sending text messages to areas that have low response rates. The agency recently started sending text messages to individuals and small businesses for two separate surveys it is conducting about the effect of the coronavirus pandemic
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-04-01): The Trump administration and Congress are still negotiating a coronavirus economic stimulus package that will provide direct payments to some Americans. But this much is clear: eligibility will not depend on whether Americans respond to the 2020 census, as recent social media posts claim. [...] But a post being shared on Facebook falsely claims that completing the 2020 census form — which began arriving in mailboxes across the country this month — is a prerequisite for receiving these payments. "Go to 2020census.gov and fill out this census form so you can get your stimulus check. That’s how they going to know where to send the checks," the post claims, adding: "If you don’t fill it out you will not receive a check in the mail." [...] But the census will not be used to determine coronavirus-related relief benefits, and failure to complete this year’s census will not preclude an individual from receiving aid through this stimulus package.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-03-22): If Your Time is short - Your response to the U.S. Census won’t affect whether you get a federal stimulus check. The 2020 Census is underway, but responding to the constitutionally mandated count of everyone in the country won’t affect whether you receive a check from the federal government as part of a potential economic stimulus plan. A recent Facebook post claims otherwise. "Go to 2020census.gov and fill out this Census form so you can get your stimulus check," the March 22 post says. "That’s how they know where to send the checks. Forward this to everyone that you know. If you don’t fill it out you will not receive a check in the mail. $1000 per adult $500 per child $3K max per household."
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2020-04-17): You should receive a coronavirus stimulus check if you meet all of the following criteria: [...] Have you received your coronavirus stimulus money yet? Fill out this form to help us report.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2021-05-14): One of the primary goals of the payments was to alleviate the economic hardship Americans faced due to the pandemic — especially for lower-income Americans, who were more likely to have been affected financially. Data from household surveys published by the U.S. Census Bureau show the reach of those payments to such households. Overall, the stimulus payments reached an estimated 85 percent of U.S. households. The share of households that received a payment was higher for lower- and middle-income households and gradually declined for those earning more than $75,000 a year — the income threshold at which the payments began to phase out for single individuals. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, about 92 percent of households earning less than $75,000 received the first Economic Impact Payment, compared to only 50 percent of households earning over $150,000. That pattern was relatively consistent across all three rounds of stimulus checks.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2022-12-02): ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE – The U.S. Treasury has released final guidance (PDF), a Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) document, and a Fact Sheet (PDF) on Coronavirus State and Local Recovery Funds. Counties and metropolitan cities must apply for Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds through the U.S. Treasury's Treasury Submission Portal: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-fund/request-funding
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2021-09-24): We estimate that 52 million people applied for UI benefits from March 13 to December 21, or 21.0 percent of the U.S. adult population of 249 million. We also estimate that 40 million people received UI benefits during the pandemic, or 16.0 percent of the adult population.18 By way of comparison, 84 percent of the population age 18 and older received stimulus payments (i.e., Economic Impact Payments) that were authorized as part of the CARES Act.19 This comparison demonstrates the extent to which UI benefits were more targeted toward those experiencing economic hardship than were stimulus payments. [...] 15The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was also involved in designing and testing HPS questions that focus on household spending. See Thesia I. Garner, Adam Safir, and Jake Schild, "Receipt and use of stimulus payments in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic," Beyond the Numbers: Prices and Spending, August 2020, https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/receipt-and-use-of-stimulus-payments-in-the-time-of-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm; and Thesia I. Garner, Adam Safir, and Jake Schild, "Changes in consumer behaviors and financial well-being during the coronavirus pandemic: results from the U.S. Household Pulse Survey," Monthly Labor Review, December 2020, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2020.26.
Claim: Americans must fill out the 2020 Census to receive coronavirus stimulus payments (Viral post, 2020-03-19)
Evidence (2022-10-11): According to Census Bureau and Federal Reserve assessments of survey data, the EIPs and advance CTC payments reduced financial hardship and food insufficiency among recipients. These pandemic-related payments to individuals far exceeded other stimulus payments made to individuals in recent history. [...] In 2020, Treasury and IRS used other data to identify and reach out to around 9 million potentially eligible nonfilers. In May 2021, TIGTA identified potentially 10 million individuals eligible for payments, but IRS has no further plans to reach out to these individuals.