Talk:National Reconciliation Ordinance

This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving National Reconciliation Ordinance was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 December 2009.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Neutrality of the article is disputed. It feels that the author is biased and is writing against the topic whereas the information should be neutral. (Discuss) Managerarc (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several improvements and I think the article looks more neutral now. unless somebody objects we can remove neutrality disputed tag.Wikireader41 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for your work. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It granted amnesty to politicians, political workers and bureaucrats who were falsely accused..." If they were falsely accused, how can they be granted amnesty? As I understand amnesty, it returns a guilty person to the status of innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the ordinance specifically dealt only with cases which were deemed to be 'False' and filed for political reasons. as such it was not an amnesty. we should consider not using the word. per text of ordinance Review Boards were to look at all cases and determine which cases were 'false' and could be withdrawn Wikireader41 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound like a blog but please bear with me because it is relevant in improving the quality of this article and similar articles. It provides important social context and background. This is nothing new. Pakistani media when it comes to elected officials is full of PR firm talking points and biases. The entire political scene is ladder climbing anarchy. There are virtually zero fact checking and neutral sources of information in Pakistan (and effectively zero watchdogs - watchdog positions are appointed by the elected officials!). This article and Pakistani news coverage has absolutely zero mention of the Sharif family cases. Typical. The Sharif family benefitted through the NRO as well. There are 2 main players of the political scene. The centre-left (PPP - Bhutto-Zardari) and the centre-right (PML-N - Sharif Family). They have alternated political power since the 60s; apart from the 2 military coups. When one party climbs to the top, measures by the other are quickly put into action to pull down the incumbents so that the opposition can shamelessly snatch the top spots at the expense of political instability, civil upheavel, volatility, violence, economic disruption, infrastructure disruption, property damage, economic stagnation, etc. When PTV was the only media game in town, the incumbents atleast had some forcirble resources to counter the smear tactics of the opposition. But since Musharraf opened up freedom of the press (which is a great asset normally), the press simply feeds the turning tides with yellow journalism and jingoistic-Fox News style coverage to cash in with respect to ratings and advertisement revenue. How ironic was it that Musharraf was undone by pressure exerted on him by the conservative masses; because he acted against the extremists (the conservative masses reacted against that and launched smear tactics to protect their own extreme affiliated entities). The NRO allowed so many of previously banished political beneficiaries to return, the same beneficiaries who then shamelessly attacked Musharraf for their own political agendas. The same beneficiaries who should have never shown their faces in Pakistan again out of humility. The hired New York based PR firms (source: New York Times) working closely with hired Pakistani PR firms launched campaigns for the newly formed coalition between the 2 seemingly incongruent parties of Sharif-Zardari, campaigns which combined with other factors created the perfect storm for Musharraf's ousting. Don't get me wrong I love a good dictatorship ousting and giving power to the people. But who was the lesser evil of the Musharraf-Zardari-Sharif trifecta I ask? Since then, the PPP won the elections and formed a majority government. Zardari betrayed Nawaz Sharif and betrayed the lawyer movement; with respect to restoring the Supreme Court judges and reforming the judiciary. The lawyer movement was not altruistic either, it had its own political opportunists and disrupted lives of urban citizens in mainly Karachi and Lahore, destroying average people's properties (cars, businesses, motorcycles, etc). The investigation into who killed Benazir Bhutto ended without answers. The rest is history. Now we have a choice between the tried and tested criminals of the Zardari circle, the Sharif circle or a former playboy turned Al-Qaeda sympathizer who wants to turn Pakistan into a Talibanized Wahabi law state. May God save Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.224.191 (talk)

You're right, it does sound like a blog, and thus is inappropriate for this website. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use "cquote" instead of "quote" for the NRO statement under background Managerarc (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, this article is biased. For example, the section 'Dissolution of NRO by Supreme Court' only carries the views of those who are in favour of NRO and believe me, those people are very limited in number. Then it doesn't include the developments on NRO till present times (more than two years have passed since the ruling came) that clearly depict that Government plainly made apex court's ruling a joke and never did anything to implement it. The section makes supreme court's position controversial and never takes into account the fact that terming NRO null and void meant investigating all those corruption cases for which (as noted in this article) Pakistan has won numerous laurels and the Federal government on the other hand did everything it could to not let this ruling be executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.154 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091123101250/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25672 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25672

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on National Reconciliation Ordinance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220033632/http://www.geo.tv/12-16-2009/54900.htm to http://geo.tv/12-16-2009/54900.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]