Talk:Shomrim (neighborhood watch group)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Shmira and Shomrim organizations, while both rooted in community safety, have distinct histories, operations, and cultural contexts that justify separate articles. Shmira often serves different communities and employs unique methods compared to Shomrim, making a single article insufficient to capture the depth and nuances of each group. By splitting the topics, Wikipedia can provide clearer, more comprehensive coverage, allowing readers to understand the individual contributions and roles of each organization. Currently, Shmira redirects to Shemira, a term unrelated to neighborhood patrols, further complicating the navigation and understanding of these topics. Splitting the articles would address this confusion while improving disambiguation. Redirects could be updated to ensure clarity between Shmira (patrols), Shemira (guarding rituals), and Shomrim (other variations). This approach would enhance user experience and eliminate the conflation of unrelated terms. Finally, separating the articles aligns with Wikipedia's principle of neutrality and precedent for splitting related but distinct topics. Combining Shmira and Shomrim has diluted their unique histories and perpetuated a misleading perception of interchangeability. A split would encourage more focused contributions from editors and provide a fairer representation of each group's identity and activities. Bklynmobrule (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you believe you have the sources to support a new article, go for it. MWFwiki (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose An argument can hardly be made here that there is any substantive difference between Shomrim and Shmira. The solution is not to fork the content, but rather to rename the article Jewish neighborhood watch (a sub-topic of Neighborhood watch) and improve it. After all, both Shomrim and Shmira derive etymologically from the Hebrew word shemira (lit. 'watching, guarding') so the proposed title is a fair and accurate descriptor of all the disparate named entities listed in the article. This source seems to imply that Crown Heights Shmira is the dominant 'Shomrim-type' neighborhood watch group in Crown Heights when it comes to making the case for funding. Both groups frequently operate in the same neighborhoods, effectively competing for funds from the same public and private entities. This point alone (vanity and WP:PROMO concerns) could be seen as good enough of a reason not to fork. While the Shmira/Shomrim split in Crown Heights appears to have something to do with the messianic fued, this does not appear to be a factor in other neighborhoods, but these details can be explored in the article itself. StonyBrook _babble 10:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would second this. I previously stated that if the initiator had the sources, they should "go for it," but I would tend to agree with this solution more, particularly given more context as you've provided. It's clear that both entities serve the same de facto purpose(s). While their histories and original goals may very well have been different, I doubt that holds true any longer. Indeed, it would appear that, at least in Los Angeles, local Shomrim and Shmira organizations have been merged into a single entity, the "Los Angeles Shmira." MWFwiki (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support split – While Shomrim and Shmira share roots in community safety patrols, they are not interchangeable and should not be collapsed into a single article. Wikipedia precedent – The “same purpose” argument doesn’t hold on Wikipedia: CVS and Walgreens each have their own page, as do Pepsi vs Coca-Cola or Delta Air Lines vs United Airlines. They all serve similar functions, but their independent histories, operations, and identities justify separate coverage. The same applies here. Distinct organizations & histories – Shmira and Shomrim have completely separate leadership and operational models. Reliable coverage confirms they developed independently, often in direct competition, particularly in Crown Heights and Borough Park. Clarity for readers – At present, Shmira redirects incorrectly to Shemira (ritual guarding), which confuses unrelated topics. A clean split with proper disambiguation would improve navigation and eliminate conflation. Merging them under a generic “Jewish neighborhood watch” not only erases critical distinctions but also risks misleading readers. Splitting the articles provides more accurate, comprehensive, and encyclopedic coverage. Bklynmobrule (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not enough of a difference to justify a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

is now active after being Launched on February 26, 2025: Queens Shomrim Officially Launches, Providing 24/7 Community Protection – The Yeshiva World 65.195.0.67 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Added StonyBrook _babble 20:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)