Talk:Order No. 227

message: Barrage troops were established long before the order. Their purpose was to protect the front from a breakthrough. There were no orders to shoot on retreaters. Furthermore - the troops had no connection with the order.--Nixer 02:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest you to edit what you know and read before writing. mikka (t) 02:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrage troops 

message: If nobody minds, I'll finish the translation of the order itself and post it to the article by the end of the week. I think it'll be better than retelling it :)   Alexandro Koukheras (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The order itself 

message: Without context - the circumstances leading to the isue of the order - and something on th eoutcome of the order, this is barely s astep away from the original wikisource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.225.100 (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't this used in the Battle of Stalingrad?  MartinezMD (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of context 

message: "Both measures were cited in the preamble of the order as having been successfully used by the Germans during their winter retreat."  Can someone please edit that sentence to make categorically clear who was using what to do whatever it was that was done?  Maybe separating the thoughts into two or three shorter sentences would help.  Rammer (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: ¿This is the war cry that uses Don Quijote in the movie of 1957?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.227.77 (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Don Kikhot (1957)

message: The article states " It is famous for its line "Not one step back!"" but this line is not present in the order listed on here. Can anyone with a better knowledge of this than me fix it? Falcon5nz (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not one step back! 

message: The phrase ni shagu nazad is used in modern and pop culture, at least in America, to mean something different than it originally meant, but this article doesn't mention that at all. I presume it is a reference to the atrocious outcome and/or ineffectiveness of such an order. (If the current article is correct, nearly a million people were penalized for disobeying it and hundreds of thousands more were never caught). For example, note the sardonic usage of it in , where the author is talking about an "insurrection" as some Republican senators refuse to vote to even consider their leader's healthcare bill. 98.232.95.56 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do people mean nowadays? 

message: The correct year of the order is 1942. You can see it in the image of the actual order that is currently in the article. The source from History.com is an error so I reverted it. I also added the missing elements of the header, date, and signature to the order's transcription. MartinezMD (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct year 

message: ! You make undo my update about faked image. Please describe your reason.
The image «File:Order No 227.jpg» are not document. This is  P.Fisxo's own picture named Order No 227, contained text only similar to real Order 227, special distorted for an unknown purpose. You may look an red letters, lines maked red are inserted by P.Fisxo. Also P.Fisxo wrote fake header.
You may look the true text in Wikisource (with the paper source links) and to be found the differences, this is easy.
--Grumbler eburg (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the content of the text inaccurate? if not it isn't "fake", it's just a different rendition. If you can't to find a better substitute, go ahead. MartinezMD (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The image "File:Order No 227.jpg" is not simple "text inaccurate". This is self-maded image by it's author. This image isn't historical document, but it's vulgarian fake. -- Grumbler eburg (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Now I understand you. Apologies, no disagreement then. MartinezMD (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faked image File:Order No 227.jpg 

message: This article has only two sources and of them neither are academically vetted. One is from the history channel which is not known for in depth or nuanced looks at history. The article reads more as an assumption on Order 227 based on films such as "Enemy at the gates" and games such as "Company of Heros 2" where the order was merely to execute fleeing troops. The aspects discussing penal battalions is accurate however the line that states commanders that didn't execute soldiers were somehow going against the order when the order did not demand executions. 162.157.4.104 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woefully inadequate citations and depth