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

Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Is it just me, or does this entire article seem like a love letter to this organization? 122.148.184.76 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write it better, why don't you?--Redaktor 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a pamphlet on this organization and not an encyclopedic entry. It is obviously copied from some kind of article written about this organization. As a lifelong Brooklyn resident I can say that this organization is not the sunshine and clovers portrayed in this article. As evidenced in the article itself, they routinely "stop and question strangers" in their neighborhoods. They have also been charged with excessive force on many occasions. Kingbinary 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbinary (talk • contribs) 17:13, August 25, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THere are a lot of POV statesments in this article, one going so far as to claim that it is NOT a POV statement. Also some derogatory comments toward the end that cite no sources claiming that shomrim volunteers apprehend and BEAT suspects prior to police arrival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.43.110 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can personally testify to the great work shomrim does. I have seen them save a life on one occasion and have called upon them when I was in distress and you can be certain they pulled through for me. I will go even further and say that even when it comes to non-emergency's they are there to help, like lock-outs etc. Also what it says in the article that shmira has more units then shomrim this is true in quantity but certainly not in quality. It says in the article that's most residence prefer to call shmira over shomrim, I have trouble digesting that fact for as I live in crownheights and between the peopole I know most of them have the shomrim hot-line on speed-dial. Also as of the present shmira is not under the auspices of the crownheights community council. May shomrim have much success crownheights loves you!. 66.8.202.60 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)crownheights resident±[reply]

Its irrelevant whether you agree or not with the Shomrim's action. The way this thing reads is definitely *not* an encyclopedic article, but a blanket pamphlet of this group. Someone should write it better. How could you possibly argue that a words like "ingenuity" and the like are products of a particular marketing and not an objective argument? 76.15.177.207 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was very kind of the previous editors to note that this article is POV but not touch it. I have flagged it as POV. The article was unbelievable: "The organization's professionalism is exemplary." "From the beginning, the Maccabees established itself as a citizen task-force that worked hand-in-hand with the local authorities, never overstepping the boundaries of its own capabilities." And there is no mention of the 1991 Crown Heights riots, in which these task forces played a significant role. Ipsenaut (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the Shomrim makes them sound like a very racist Jewish neighborhood watch. They only accept Jews as members. They primarily protect Jews, rather than neighborhood residents per se. What they do with a criminal often depends on whether he is Jewish or not. Although these things, if they are true, would certainly make the Shomrim organizations a collection of Jewish racist gangs, that does not mean that they are a bad thing for Jews. In fact, it sounds like the Jews are doing what we should all be doing, guarding our own tribe first and above all others. 74.47.80.190 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to fix article and make it factual, but it keeps getting changed back to the same public relations lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attention whore (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly trying to be inflammatory, if you have criticism of the group (I'm sure you do) phrase it in neutral manner without commentary and source it and it will stay - Schrandit (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is difficult to use. Mostly because it has no inline references. Additionally such references may help to resolve the ongoing neutrality dispute. Please note I am not taking sides in any squabbles, but encyclopedias need citations. Awg1010 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, encyclopedias don't need citations. WikiPedia does, because of its inferiority complex :).Dovid (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and removed:

• links in violation of WP:EL
• sections on individual organisations - there could be an infinite number of these and there is no room for them all. All were unreferenced, some with six month old fact tags. Most were poorly written or just straight out adverts.

Several people have reinserted material without discussion. Please try and explain what you think should be in the article. It is not acceptable to just re-add things that have been removed without discussion. ninety:one 17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than this be an article about a given organization that seems to be failing WP:N, I'd like to shift this to an article about independent Jewish neighborhood patrol groups.

• BBC article
• Haaretz about the CSG in Australia
• CSG official description
• British Jewish Security grou
• [1]
• NY shomrim investigation
• NY civlian patrol review
• NY Anti terror group

There are groups like this most European communities, in South Africa, in Australia and in some North American communities. If there are no objections I'm going to redo this article to include the broader topic. Joe407 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have a go, but I can't see any organisations really being notable enough at the moment. ninety:one 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I revised the article. I'd like to hear comments. Should more information be included about the individual orgs? More importantly, should the article name be changed? Is "Shomrim" a specific org.name or a concepts? Joe407 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I'm taking the slightly unconventional move (WP:BOLD) and reverting the article to the version that I left it a few hours ago. No, I am not trying to WP:OWN the article and therefore I will explain the edit.

1. The list of groups. As the article currently exists, its topic is volunteer civilian patrols in Jewish communities. Therefor, the London CSG and the Baltimore Shomrim are equally valid groups to be on a list in this article even though the London group is not called "shomrim". This is because there is no single body or organization but rather a number of communities creating similar groups with some of them choosing the same name.
2. The inclusion of the Jewish Week article. My personal opinion aside, the Jewish Week passes WP:RS.
3. Criticism. The paragraph was phrased carefully due to the JW article only reporting unnamed NYPD sources and official statements that were very bland. the sentence about the fellow who keeps a list of suspects is not part of a section called criticism as the article did not report anyone criticising him or the chapter.

Please discuss these points with me and I look forward to constructive criticism. Joe407 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, you kept the list up, so there's nothing left for me to comment.
2. and 3.- While it might pass as a valid reference for quoting news, the article in question doesn't have anybody quoted publicly. As long as there's nobody wiling to criticize the shomrim publicly, I think the article not valid to be considered journalism, and valueless as objective criticism. And as nobody else in the media have reported similar criticism, it is likely that these anonymous critics are figments of the writers imagination. Also, on another issue, (i listened as) Commisioner Ray Kelly said publicly on the radio that he would like to thank the shomrim for the help (you can probably find many refs to that) that they have contributed to finding leiby kletzky. This article tries to prove the opposite, and from the story of leiby kletzky itself! Even that which the jewish week quotes has nothing to do with the kletzky story and has to be put in a different section of criticism. --pastasauce 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337freek (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)

1. I disagree that the London CST belongs - it's nothing to do with their name, but rather with the fact that they don't appear to fit the definition we've given here of a Jewish neighborhood watch organization. CST's work, according to their website, appears to be primarily the collection and publishing of data on antisemitic incidents (as well as some community stuff not directly related to law enforcement); when they patrol, they appear to do so in conjunction with the police, rather than as a separate body. More to the point, I removed the list because in including it, we begin to run into directory issues. The organizations are not independently notable, and listing every city - not even neighborhood - that has shomrim (particularly when we allow it to be defined so loosely) does not increase reader understanding of the topic.

Thank you for joining the conversation. I'm not seeing directory problems with the list. If you could clarify which item in you feel conflicts that would be helpful. As to what the groups need to do in order to be included in this article, I'm not sure. I understand taht there is a different modus operendi among the groups but they seem to be all varients on a common theme - "Volunteers creating a watch group in Jewish communities". So yes, in London they may patrol along with the police, in Brooklyn they patrol on their own, and in Australia they fly to Israel and train with IDF counter-terror units. The concept is the same and as such I feel that they all fall under one umbrella. If there was an official orginazation that included all of the US east-coast groups and had rules and bylaws defining what it means to be a group with the name "Shomrim", then London and South Africa would indeed be out. But as the article is about the concept rather than an organization, I feel that all of these groups are "in". I've got to go but hope to address the other points later. Joe407 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "There is a Jewish organization in Melbourne and Syndney" basically just tells us "There are Jews in Melbourne and Sydney," which we knew already. If we defined "shomrim" much more strictly - including only groups that called themselves shomrim or that a reliable third-party source had defined as shomrim - or if we wrote about neighborhoods (like we have for Brooklyn) rather than only cities, then that could be useful and encyclopedic. But just listing all organizations that fit extremely loose criteria makes the page a directory of these organizations, rather than providing information about Jewish diaspora culture, etc. (Not to mention that just deciding that these organizations that no source has designated as shomrim are shomrim violates WP:NOR, which I realize that I forgot to mention before.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shifting this conversation to a new section. the question at hand is "What is the topic of this article?

1. I agree that the Jewish Week is RS for this. (I've criticized its failure to fact-check in the past - things like mixing up the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn that don't necessarily affect the quality of their articles very much but that would be easily corrected with a small amount of effort - but I doubt they just fabricated a quote.)
2. I disagree that the article does not report anyone criticizing the shomrim on the basis of the secret list of molesters and their other conduct with regard to child sexual abuse. (If you think it is not sufficient, however, we also have this editorial from the same issue which perhaps makes the point more clearly.) A better way of addressing this issue, however, would be to gather sources and write more about the shomrim's history, methods, and relationships with police, without framing it as a criticism section.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese raised a good question: What is the topic of this article? Is it about a specific orginazation called "Shomrim"? Is it about all groups called "Shomrim"? Is it about Jewish community watch groups to which the Hebrew term "shomrim" can be applied? Personaly, I would go with option #3 because as a concept Jewish community watch groups is widepread enough and have collectively recieved enough media converage that it passes WP:N. None of the individual groups have sufficient individual notability or coverage to pass WP:N and there is no overall orginazation called "Shomrim", just individual groups using the term for its name recognition. What do you this is the topic of this article? Joe407 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a group needs to have "shomrim" in its name in order to be part of the topic discussed here (although all of most of the ones that I would say belong here do use the term) - I think it is necessary that some source describe the group as shomrim, either the group themselves or a third-party source, to avoid original research. I think you're right that the individual groups are not notable, but that the type of group is notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it when I came across the stub (sorry, I neglected to check the talk page before undertaking my rewrite and expansion), this article is about the Orthodox Jewish Shomrim organization founded in Brooklyn in the late 1970s / early 1980s which has been expanded to a few other cities. It is a specific model of Orthodox Jewish volunteers patrolling their own neighborhoods, with training and licensing from police, and has adequate sourcing from a wide variety of reliable sources. Regarding other Jewish neighborhood watch organizations such as those in Melbourne and Sydney, I think they should be put in a paragraph under Neighborhood watch (and a link to the main article on Shomrim could also be put there). Yoninah (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great edits Yoninah! --pastasauce (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate all the content you've added. However, it's had the effect of creating a criticism ghetto - where positive information about the shomrim appears in the main text under "operations" and under the individual groups, but negative information appears in a section of its own at the bottom of the article - which is frowned upon. Can we integrate the "Police relations" section better? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To address Yoninah's comment that the article is about the "Shomrim organization founded in Brooklyn in the late 1970s / early 1980s which has been expanded to a few other cities." - this would be true if the other cities are in fact branches / expansions of the Brooklyn-founded org. Is this the case? If so, this should be in the article. If it is not the case than the article should either be about a specific orginazation or about the concept. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the Shomrim groups in different cities are not branches but independent spin-offs of the same concept. To my knowledge, the Brooklyn, Monsey and London Shomrim are all run by Hasidim, which is not the case for general Jewish neighborhood watch groups. I will try to fine-tune the article a bit more with yours and Roscelese's observations. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are all independant then we should define the article's subject as Volunteer Jewish community watch groups. Joe407 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be independent, but to avoid OR and indiscriminateness, we should define it as volunteer Jewish community watch groups that call themselves shomrim or are called shomrim by reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe: Do you mean that you'd rename the page Jewish volunteer community watch groups, and make Shomrim a subsection? Wouldn't that pare down a lot of information about the Shomrim groups into a paragraph or two? The Shomrim patrols in Brooklyn, Monsey, Baltimore and London really do have a lot more in common with each other than with general Jewish neighborhood watch groups. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops. thanks user Roscelese for catching my NYPD Shormrim patch addition GOOF and explaining it --in the edit summary code at lest. good that the article's got a caretaker these days. Cramyourspam (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. That patch looked like the Brooklyn South Shomrim, not the NYPD. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a NYPD patch, though (I had the same thought as you, so I ran a search on "NYPD patch" - they all look like that, it's just the text that's different). My guess is that the unit to which the owner of the patch belongs happens to patrol in South Brooklyn. But I could be wrong - do the non-police shomrim wear NYPD patches at all? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Brooklyn South Shomrim Patrol patch! This is real, even if it looks like the NYPD one. Check out the general facebook page for the shomrim over here for much more patches. Theres probably even more info over there to add, but I dont use facebook! I will revert to the cramyourspam edit soon. --pastasauce (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you're right! I guess that means it doesn't belong on the other shomrim page. And that we may have to work on the "police relations" content... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should basically be a summary of the article. This means that due to the amount of criticism of the shomrim we have in the article, a sentence or two about it should appear in the lead. How best can we summarize that section? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe -after -They also help locate missing people. In the United States, Shomrim groups are licensed and trained by local police departments and sometimes serve as a liaison between the religious public and police. - we can add- "While they have been publicly praised for their efforts, the shomrim have been criticized by the police for not completely cooperating with them." --pastasauce (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really suitable. Mostly because it waves the criticism away by making it part of another sentence about how great the shomrim are, but we could also give more detail. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me again why we have to be so critical? They have gotten awards and praise and they have gotten criticized. So let's please make the LEAD be a summary of that. --pastasauce (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead as it stood was already positive - "Shomrim help with X, Y, and Z" - and giving a vague wave to the criticism while piling on more positive statements is not neutral and does not reflect the balance of the sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try. Yoninah (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all right to me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the lead is full of criticism, and doesn't really reflect the reality of Shomrim. Maybe a bit of praise needs to be put in prior to the critic? -- VarifiedEditor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest something! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding this at the end (before the "History" tab): "Despite these isolated incidents of criticism, Shomrim are generally praised, plus on many occasions received awards from the Police and the community, for their regular lawful contribution in protecting the local neighborhood and helping in the fight against crime". Any good? -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think any phrasing which attempts to undermine the existing text is a poor choice. Similarly, we wouldn't write "Despite isolated praise in specific regions, multiple separate Shomrim groups have been found to use excessive force against non-Jewish suspects and to protect child molesters." Also, I very much do not see that the praise is as general as you claim.

As well, I think the idea of praise/criticism format is not particularly apt. It's currently phrased in the lead as "shomrim have been criticized for one or two things," but the real information there is "shomrim do those things" (not notifying police, whatever) and it could be rephrased. Whereas the fact that shomrim fight crime is already present in the lede and does not need re-stating. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about just adding the fact that Shomrim have on many occasions received awards and commendations from the Police for their work. Any better?? -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any views? -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to edit the 2nd paragraph of Police relations but I dont know how to properly implement it, and i dont wanna be too WP:BOLD. Here goes- In an interview with Ami Magazine, Simcha Bernath the Shomrim coordinater, has denied that which the WSJ (and subsequently the Jewish week) quoted the shomrim as saying. He mantains that the shomrim do not keep a secret list of child molesters which they hold back from the police. The ami magazine doesn't have a free web version of their paper, but one blog took scans of the interview over here. Please discuss. Note:there might be other interesting tidbits in there worthy of adding to this article. --pastasauce (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a good source, but we would have to keep these things in mind:

1. We can't remove the statement that someone in the Brooklyn South Shomrim said that they keep a list on file. We can only add that someone else denied it.
2. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see where in the interview Bernath says this. It's set off at the top of the page as though it's a quote excerpted from the interview, but unless I've overlooked it, it doesn't appear in the interview text. Do you know what's going on there?

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Going over the references, I noticed that the reference to the WSJ doesn't belong there and it should be the daily news instead. Also i noticed that the Daily news doesn't say that it was a list of local child molesters, rather just a list of suspected child molesters, which given that the shomrim have no solid evidence, it seems to be their choice to report it to cops (im not really sure the cops would even accept it without proof). On another hand, bernath seems to deny that theres even a suspected list, rather he says that they misunderstood (or misquoted) daskal, and that the shomrim cull their list from the NY offender database. I'm not sure where this all leads.
2. There's a couple of pictures there, its the last picture, and its on the top right side. --pastasauce (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bernath isn't a reliable source for the statement that the Jewish Week misquoted Daskal. We'd need some sort of retraction or statement from Daskal. We can say that Bernath denied it and suggested it was a misquote, but that's all. The stuff about suspected molesters (and the article does currently say "suspected" in both places) is cited to the Jewish Week as well as the WSJ, so the WSJ ref is probably a stray. I'll take it out.
2. Aha, thanks, not sure how I missed that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really can't keep siphoning off all negative information into a separate section. It's a violation of NPOV that feeds readers all the positive information and allows any negative information to be dismissed as "oh, it's just some people's opinion." First it was the "Police relations" section which was the criticism ghetto by another name, since not all the information there had to do with police relations - it was just the repository for all the negative content. And now the criticism ghetto has been created officially. Even though it's still inaccurate to call it "criticism" since it also contains statements from shomrim themselves and incidents of shomrim members actually being brought up on criminal charges for assault. Let's find a logical structure for the article where we can discuss both the positive and negative points of the shomrim's relationship with the Jewish community, with the police, with non-Jews, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience on Wikipedia is that a "Controversy" section is often added to articles without anyone calling it a "criticism ghetto". See: Nachman of Breslov#Controversy, Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl#Controversies, Lipa Schmeltzer#"The Big Event" controversy. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's often done, but where possible, it's better to integrate the information. See:

• WP:STRUCTURE, which says "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
• WP:CRITS, which says "These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article....Criticism sections should not be used to describe attributes that are likely to be criticized unless and until a meaningful individual has criticized the subject for that attribute...Attributes which are likely to draw criticism may be documented elsewhere in the article if relevant." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and I agree with you. I'm not trying to be pedantic. I happened to come across a very controversial subject, Yisroel Ber Odesser, that is written in a very NPOV manner, with the positive and critial aspects blended together as you suggested.

Now, how do you suggest going about it? Is the flow of the lead acceptable? Should we move the 4 paragraphs in the Criticism section to the Operations, Police Relations, and London-area Shomrim sections, as follows:

==Operations==

Each Shomrim group maintains its own dispatcher and 24-hour hotline,^[1][2] whose number is known throughout the Orthodox Jewish community.^[3]

Shomrim responds to a wide variety of crimes and cases, including reports of purse snatching, vandalism, car and bicycle thefts, and missing people. Volunteers patrol the city streets in the wee hours of the morning as a deterrent presence.^[4][1] When they aren't on duty, they remain on call,^[5][6] and are often summoned to help other Shomrim groups or other Jewish community rescue organizations such as Hatzalah and Chaverim during large-scale search and rescue operations.^[7]

Shomrim has been effective in apprehending suspects of robberies,^[8] assault,^[8] car thefts,^[9][10] vandalism,^[11] domestic violence,^[12] nuisance crimes,^[13] and antisemitic attacks.^[14] In an incident in 2010, four Brooklyn South Shomrim volunteers gave chase to a suspected child predator who suddenly drew a gun and shot each of them.^[15] Following that incident, the Brooklyn South Shomrim were issued bullet-proof vests by the New York State Senate.^[16]

Shomrim volunteers have occasionally been criticized for using excessive force with non-Jewish suspects. In 1996 a Crown Heights Shomrim volunteer was convicted of assault charges after repeatedly hitting a suspect on the head with a walkie-talkie after the man had been subdued.^[8] In 2010 a Baltimore Shomrim volunteer was arrested for allegedly striking a black teenager.^[17] In 2011, two Monsey Shomrim volunteers were charged with misdemeanors in a fracas that erupted after a girl hit a passing van with a water balloon.^[18]

==Police relations==

Many residents of Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn call Shomrim in an emergency rather than the police. Shomrim cites its faster response time, knowledge of the territory, and ability to speak Yiddish, the language of the Hasidic community, for the residents' preference.^[19] While the New York City Police Department acknowledges Shomrim's role as the "eyes and ears" of the community, it has criticized the volunteer patrol for not sharing information with the authorities. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has gone on record stating that Shomrim does not immediately notify police when a call comes in.^[8] This was highlighted in the 2011 missing-child case of Leiby Kletzky (see below): the first call by Kletzky's mother reporting her missing child was received by Brooklyn South Shomrim more than two hours before Kletzky's father called police.^[20]

The civilian patrol has also been accused of withholding information from police about suspected local child molesters. One Brooklyn South Shomrim member acknowledged to the press that they maintain a file of suspected local child molesters, and some believe that includes their pictures, and the make, model and license-plate number of their cars. But it does not share this information with police due to the Torah prohibition against mesirah (informing on a fellow Jew to the non-Jewish authorities).^[20] However, another high-ranking member claims that the other member was misquoted, and that the list that Brooklyn South Shomrim maintains is culled from the New York Sex Offender Registry.^[21] Members of the Williamsburg Shomrim always consult a rabbi before involving police in a crime committed by one Jew against another.^[1]

===London-area Shomrim===

The Shomrim Stamford Hill Safety and Rescue Patrol, founded in 2005,^[2] has 22 volunteers and a 24-hour emergency hotline staffed by six operators. In its first five months of operation, the hotline received 2,000 calls reporting burglaries, thefts and muggings. Incoming calls are broadcast both to police and Shomrim members; the latter often arrive first. The volunteer patrol identifies three to five suspects each week on average.^[22]

The North West Community Patrol, serving Golders Green, was founded in 2009.^[22]

The founding of Shomrim organizations in London met with disapproval by the London Metropolitan Police, who questioned the existence of a community patrol working in tandem with trained police officers^[22] and claimed they are endangering themselves.^[23] Shomrim Stamford Hill counter that they are often the first responder to calls from their community.^[22][24]

Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks good! (I'd implement it myself except I think I'm at 3RR.) Except I might suggest putting the London bit in "Police relations" as well. What do you think? (I guess part of the issue is that these groups are independent, so we have to choose between putting information in a general section, in a geographically specific section, or both.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes, but now I think the lead reads very negatively... Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article as a whole, there are too many "howevers" pivoting the positive against the negative. And the Police Relations section mainly reads like Shomrim-bashing. Maybe what's missing is some positive detail to start off this section, because Shomrim is respected by police departments for being a neighborhood watch. Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the police relations section needs more positive - the relations aren't all negative (which is one of the reasons I initially objected to titling the old criticism ghetto "police relations"!) Maybe we could find more information about how the volunteers are trained by the police, which would be interesting as well as offsetting some of the negative stuff. The "whiles" and "howevers" are probably just a stylistic issue rather than something that reflects a problem with the content. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this article ends up being more WP:NPOV if we include a separate and distinct Controversy or Criticism section. As it stands now, all negative information is buried somewhere deep in the page. So I guess I Oppose the tactic but Support the idea. --FeldBum (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-09-07/news/gotham-s-crusaders-shomrim-jewish-neighborhood-patrol/ Joe407 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they picked up the lead from the Jewish Week's lashon hara and interviewed the guy himself. I only read the first page, which regurgitates the NYT and WSJ coverage. I think we have enough reliable sources without this. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's quite long and detailed, and as you yourself admit, it's not simply a reprint of other newspapers' coverage, given that it interviews other people. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't make it lashon hara, and it's rather shameful that you'd think coverage intended to expose harmful practices so that they might be corrected is worse than letting those practices continue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this edit was restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shomrim_%28neighborhood_watch_group%29&diff=565191687&oldid=565155013 We do not do background checks on the Shomrim. They might do it on themselves through a private agency but they are not being doing through any police agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then explain why the source states that volunteers are fingerprinted and background-checked? (Is it possible that in your New England jurisdiction they are not, but in Brooklyn, which the source is about, they are?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" is wrong. It probably just talked to one of the members who passed along this incorrect information. I am in New England and know LEOs who work with the Shomrim. I asked them and they said there is no vetting process for the Shomrim. New England Cop (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your professional interest is appreciated, but I'm afraid we can't prefer this sort of hearsay to reliable sources. On the other hand, the source (Wall St. Journal) attributes the statement to the Shomrim coordinator, so it seems like a good idea that we do the same. What do you think of that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sure seems to me that attributing the facts to the Shomrim themselves isn't the best way to do fact-checking. When I am investigating a case I don't ask the person I am investigating to confirm a fact...I go to the person/company/agency/whatever and find out directly. Just because it's in a respected newspaper doesn't mean it's true. I'm a little concerned that you all are more concerned about what you can point to in a "reliable source" than what are the facts on the ground. Yeah...I guess saying "according to the Shomrim coordinator they are all subjected to background checks and fingerprinting" but that's totally meaningless and doesn't establish their legitimacy as a public safety organization. When I run background checks on people I check both my state's system, the FBI/NCIC, Board of Probation, etc. Who is checking the fingerprints from the Shomrim? Are they doing a III fingerprint check, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, etc? There are far too many questions that are unanswered to come across on the most authoritative website on the Internet as fact and reliable. Thank you. New England Cop New England Cop (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way - On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The WSJ might not have looked any further than Daskal, the person it quoted, but because the information in the article is cited to the WSJ, we know exactly where it comes from. On the other hand, how can we know that you talked to LEOs in Brooklyn? How can we know that they said there are no checks? It might be worth a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard anyway, but keep in mind that anecdotal evidence isn't really admissible here. (And yeah, sometimes it sucks because there are definitely times when the reliable sources are wrong! But they're all we have to go on.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so but it just seems wrong to me that you can "verify" something simply by finding where that person/group/company was quoted in a newspaper. Newspapers rarely do fact-checking and are more interested in getting the story out than in good journalism. New England Cop (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of removing the subsection of "In popular culture" and just adding the link within that section, into the "External Links" subsection. I'm in the view that this is not so relevant to the main article. Please share your views. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any views on this? otherwise I shall go ahead. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe link the film in see also rather than using the reference as an external link? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These engagement events are very much some of the highlights of the work Shomrim do, but yet very little about this is featured on this page, I feel that at least in the sub-section of the individual Shomrim organizations, that more than just one line should be permitted. I'm referring to the last paragraph in the Stamford Hill Shomrim section, as you can see from the linked source, that this was a major event for Shomrim and the Police and the public, with many law enforcement agencies participating, you even had the Police Helicopter do stunts overhead which is not an everyday occurrence, and the Hackney Police Borough Commander participated too and made a statement (as featured in the linked source). I very much understand that a Wikipedia page should not be a promotional page, but surely that doesn't mean that because this content is of a positive nature, it cannot be elaborated in more detail, details that would interest an in-depth reader interested in the activities of a local Shomrim. I'm awaiting a response on this, especially from Dweller and Roscelese. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything encyclopedic about inflating the section with text such as "a fun packed event" or "an absolute pleasure." This is evidently included only for promotional purposes. Since WP is an encyclopedia and as such reflects other sources rather than being itself any sort of analysis, we would need more good-quality sources about these events in order to expand our coverage of them. Even then, we would have to keep in mind that WP:ROUTINE coverage is not the same as actual investigative news of the sort that we cite in the rest of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Roscelese said. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about including the Police and council departments that attended? Plus a line quoting the Police borough commander? which in my view reflects the standard of the event. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. This article is about an international organisation. Waxing lyrical about the marvellous, fantastical event organised one year by one branch is definitively WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:RECENTISM. --15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote: Some Brooklyn patrols have marked cars which resemble New York City Police Department vehicles, but most use their own, unmarked cars.

This doesn't make sense. Maikel (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This received lots of international attention including from US secretary of state John Kerry, and US ambassador to the UN Ambassador Samantha Power, this was also featured in the international news and media outlets, therefore, I thought it would be appropriate to add the details in a new category, rather than hidden within the subsection of Stamford Hill Shomrim, so that people that come to this page would see it as one of the headlines about Shomrim.

Please share your views.

-- VarifiedEditor (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this was necessary, and I think you have not yet learned that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit now has the last sentence of the lead -- placed in its own paragraph -- reading:

Shomrim organizations have a history of conflict with non-Jews and patrol members have been convicted of assaults and misdemeanors against African-American and other civilians

This new lead edit seems to be based on a sentence in the Operations section of the article which says "Shomrim organizations have occasionally been criticized for using excessive force with suspects, particularly non-Jews" and two or three subsequent mentions of Shomrim volunteers getting into trouble while on watch. I don't see any of this meriting the assertion of a history of conflict with non-Jews in the lead. Seems like a rather gross exaggeration and what our rules call undue weight. The body of the article does not indicate violent misbehavior by the Shomrim to be a systemic problem. Motsebboh (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has wisely removed the offending sentence. Barring any disagreement here, I guess the issue is resolved.. Motsebboh (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sources do draw attention to a pattern, rather than just describing individual incidents. Do not stalk me; I'm tired of telling you this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelsi 1989: "Suspects" really isn't appropriate here. The Shomrim aren't a law enforcement organization (if I go up and hit a guy, even if I see him vandalizing a car, or tossing a water balloon, that doesn't make him a "suspect"), and in at least one of the cited cases, the claim that they jumped the guy because they thought he was committing a crime was discovered to be a post-facto justification for attacking him. Moreover, the recent NYT source (cited) points out that this is particularly an issue with Shomrim's black neighbors, and other sources (not in article) were pointing out that Shomrim targeted black people and other minorities long before the Patterson thing happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course "suspect" is the wrong terminology for the example you gave. A person who you clearly witness committing a crime is called a "perpetrator". Nom de vileplume (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelsi 1989: Do you have a reason for disregarding the sources pointing out that this is an issue of conflict between Shomrim and black/other minorities? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably relevant for the Brooklyn chapter, just dropping this here as I don't currently have time to write anything. The New York Times - Lawyer for Hasidic Man Convicted in Assault Calls Him a ‘Scapegoat’ --Pudeo (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shomrim (neighborhood watch group). 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/20110812062551/https://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/49093 to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/49093
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150422220145/http://gothamist.com/2012/11/13/photos_liev_schreiber_as_williamsbu.php to http://gothamist.com/2012/11/13/photos_liev_schreiber_as_williamsbu.php

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. this gentleman in the UK criticised them:

On Monday 14th May, 2018, at Southwark Crown Court, London, Jeremy Bedford-Turner was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, six to be in custody, the rest to be served under licence. Better known as Jez Turner, Chairman and organiser of The London Forum, he was convicted of 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' under Britain's increasingly contentious race hate laws. He was pursued for nearly three years by a charity calling itself The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) who were determined to make an example of him after he staged an Anti-Shomrim protest near Whitehall in July 2015. The Shomrim are a type of private police force, or vigilante group, formed for the protection of London's Jewish residents. They use cars that look like police vehicles, and its volunteers look like uniformed police officers. Mr Turner asked why no other racially-exclusive group is allowed to form its own private protection force, and behave like an official branch of the police.

Sample RS: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jeremy-bedford-turner-race-hate-speech-antimsemitism-british-soldier-england-jewish-control-a8352561.html -> Let us add it.

See also related Talk above. Zezen (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. The sources do attest convictions 2. Our article on mesirah states that it may apply only to reporting crimes to abusive rather than legitimate authority, but this article isn't really the place to debate that point of disagreement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a voluntary service brigade intended to keep the peace in largely their own communities. What is the necessity to have the introductory article dedicate over 50% of the space on various criticisms about what was said in criticism about them? Every group who confronts criminals will have the criminals complaining about them? It's totally unnecessary. There can be a section "Criticism" and then put all that in that section, but the intro paragraph should tell the world what and who they are, what they do, and what their purpose is. It would be like having an entry for "Toronto Police Department" "Toronto Police police Toronto and John Doe said they suck." Historiaantiqua (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some IPs have recently ganged up to remove Shmira from the article, claiming it is separate from Shomrim. Possibly so, but both Shomrim and Shmira seem to be combined in the article for over a decade. Therefore this discussion is raised to determine whether Shmira is distinct enough from Shomrim to warrant a split, or whether the groups have a similar nature that a single article is warranted. Note Shmira currently redirects to Shemira, a distinct topic, so a split would involve some disambiguation. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted that Shomrim is a disambiguation page which includes Shemira and other spelling variants, which suggests a split here is discouraged. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]