Talk:Bush, aides convicted of Iraq war crimes in absentia by Malaysia

Review of revision 1499974 [Passed]

Revision 1499974 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had to think twice about wether I'd done too much to disqualify myself from review. Decided I hadn't, but it was close. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1499974 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had to think twice about wether I'd done too much to disqualify myself from review. Decided I hadn't, but it was close. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

NPOV

This article does not meet npov. For a start the title is completely misleading. This was not state action. Further, the article should have stated that this so-called tribunal is not recognised by the UN, ICC or by the international community. This is rather important Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

will expand when I get home. Internet on mobile phones can be annoying at times :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all, however, unsourced. And, a tribunal formed by what was then a serving Prime Minister is a state action. Given the tribunal self-states to have little real power, and the article reflects this, I don't see a problem. An intelligent reader should be able to reach a conclusion on how much credence they give or do not give a relatively ineffectual tribunal. There is no claims stated that this is a good thing either, despite many in the sources. I would greatly appreaciate a sourced statement on the inadequacies of the tribunal, but this should be matched by the fierce support granted by certain quarters. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, I despair that this has been selected above fresher, larger articles about frankly more important things as lead one.) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)