# Talk:Adolf Hitler's bodyguard

This article looks quite good, and I think it stands a good chance at GA. I was wondering if there would be a better substitute for the word "mobster" in the following sentence:
"Like any other mobster would do, he surrounded himself with muscle for protection and to suppress those who disrupted the party meetings as he provoked crowds through his speeches."
To be sure, I'm no Nazi apologist, but I think it could be made more accurate. We could certainly remove up to "He surrounded," or we could find a slightly less propagandistic word. It really is a minor thing, just something I noticed. Thanks, GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, how about autocrat or despot? Kierzek (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "autocrat" is good. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I tweaked it. Kierzek (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Did not see this section until now! "I concur" and good job you two. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this article with a view to assessing it for GA. I consider there are scope issues. If the article is supposed to be about Hitler's bodyguard, then the only real bodyguard organisations relevant to protecting Hitler were; the SA Stabswache, Stosstrupp-Hitler, the original Schutzkommando/Sturmstaffel/SS/SS-Stabswache/SS-Sonderkommando Berlin/LAH/LSSAH, the FBK, the RSD, and the LSSAH honour guard battalion. They developed in a pretty linear fashion over time. The SA and SD, wider SS, Orpo etc are really not part of this story. Also, the narrative needs work, the article is currently quite "listy". Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 03:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some additions to tie-in the different groups with cites. Kierzek (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adolf Hitler's bodyguard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of Jonas and myself, thank you for the review. Please add the GA article icon. Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

this article seems to make a lot of statements but there are often no citations given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:181F:0:8021:2593:9309:B313:BF11 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 

No, you don't have to cite every sentence if the same cite covers more than one sentence or if it covers a whole section, then the cite is put at the end of the section. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

To begin with: This article is oddly titled. Adolf Hitler's bodyguard (singular!) was Rochus Misch. At least he is the one who became known as "Hitler's bodyguard", mostly because of his memoir Hitler's Last Witness: The Memoirs of Hitler's Bodyguard. So what is this article really about? Most of the information presented overlaps with information presented in other articles. The chapter Bodyguard organisations is an overview of various paramilitary party organizations and branches of the police. Each one of these organizations has an article of its own and the content featured in our article here does not add significant aspects or even facets to that. The article then features one "incident" and various "security breaches". There is a list Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler and there are also stand alone articles like on the 20 July plot. Besides, if you want to have an article on security incidents and  assassination attempts, you should not call that Adolf Hitler's bodyguard, because these are different topics. The chapter Protection structure is trivial in nature, and I don't see any reasons why the information about the Berghof, e.g., should not be included in the article on the Berghof if needed - as long as it can be reliably sourced. To use Peter Hoffmann's study Hitler's Personal Security (1st ed. 1975; 1st English ed. 1979) seems all right, but Hoffmann follows a certain plan. He has some questions that he wants to answer and he organizes his material accordingly. None of this informs this article. Instead the main source is a documentary by World Media Rights Productions. The mini series Hitler's bodyguard features 13 episodes, each one 50 minutes long. Does anyone expect interested readers to watch the whole show? It may be found on youtube, but I doubt, that those videos are not copyright infingements. It seems, however, as if the language, which is quite pathetic (just see the lead section), was almost directly taken from the intro of the documentary. In fact, the article itself appears to be a mere rehash of that documentary. At least both share the same title. The lead section is too long anyway and doesn't comply with the manual of style, but that seems to be a minor point given the other problems. In short, I would have nominated this article for deletion right away, if it was not listed as a GA. I do not think that it can be improved, because its whole conception is inconsistent and murky. There is not much to be merged into other articles, because of the poor sourcing. It needs not to be kept, because most of it overlaps with other articles. --Assayer (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, I know English is not your native language and the fact is the word "bodyguard" can be uses in singular or plural. Here it is used in plural. I also believe you miss the point that articles can convey related subject matter as does this one. It is not a content folk. This article is an overview of a very complicated subject, which is under written about and many don't have a clear understanding about. I have been working to improve it slowly over time. But many articles can be improved, including GA and FA articles. It should be kept for the reasons stated and I can discuss this further, but have other matters to attend to at this point in the day. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The current name is a misnomer that makes me think of a single person guarding Hitler. I think a better name would be Adolf Hitler's personal security as more accurately reflecting the scope of the article. I'm not going to make a formal proposal, but I just thought that I'd throw it out there for discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "bodyguard" can be uses in singular or plural. In this case plural. With that said, I would agree to an article name change to "Adolf Hitler's personal security", as it is more descriptive of the subject presented herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)