Talk:Radicalization

I am currently working to formalize, update and expand this article to incorporate the body of scholarly knowledge available. Efforts will be made to incorporate much of the pre-existing sources and material with an eye towards continuity and organization.

-User:ArturiusKN --Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• This is how the word is now employed: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 1955.
• This does not make sense, to me:
• This talk page was deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:

09:38, 27 May 2007 Stephen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Radicalization" ? (Expired prod, concern was: This article appears to be an original essay, it does not cite any sources.)

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just expanded this stub article, using the obvious low-hanging references relating to Islamic radicalization. However, as a result the article has an excessive emphasis on recent Islamic militancy and terrorism. It badly needs expanding to include other cases of radicalization -- for example, historical communist and fascist movements, as well as historically unimportant groups such as ecoterrorists, the Red Brigades and 19th century and early 20th century militant anarchism -- as well as taking a look at the resemblances and differences between these cases; there must be scholarly research on this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes material from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center website at http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/radicalization.html that is in the public domain as a work of the U.S. federal government. -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do avoid me having to re-do the work that you've already done, can you be more specific about which bits, and what are you suggesting be done? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I need to work on corporate income tax incidence and rentier tax:

"I think what the corporations on the right have realized is the best defense is a good offense. So they're out here screaming about people on food stamps and entitlements, when it's a subsidy to them."[1]

Religion gains converts as government social safety nets fail. Some people adhere to a corporate-hierarchical religion which is also susceptible to radicalization. EllenCT (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this section is nonsense or anything similar to nonsense.

The idea of the radical center is opposed to other forms of radicalization. Except in cases of widespread misunderstandings, the radical center is a conservative version of the demographic center, but not necessarily a progressive version. In the 1990s, Ross Perot ran for office of the President of the United States, and political independents such as Jesse Ventura, Angus King, and Lowell Weicker became governors. One of the reasons that people turn to radical, fundamentalist, and extreme versions of religious beliefs is because the social cohesion of religion helps to correct for failures in more egalitarian forms of social safety nets. ref>Friedman, Thomas (March 23, 2010). "A Tea Party Without Nuts". New York Times. Retrieved 19 April 2013. EllenCT (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your sources are op-eds, not serious scholarly work. Op-eds are de facto not legitimate sources for Wikipedia. 2. You assume a lot of jargon irrelevant to the concept - "Radical Center" is already soaked in left-right jargon, which you do not provide a theoretical backing for. A Wiki entry on radicalization is not the place for this kind of nebulous jargon. That an NYT op-ed and some PS fiefdom jargon coincide does not mean linking the two does this article any favors without also providing the theoretical backbone as it relates to the concept of radicalization, which you do not to. 3. Your header proposes a policy response. Wikipedia is not Brookings, it is an encyclopedia, and as a source of information should not incorporate obscurantist blovations any more than absolutely necessary.

ArturiusKN (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's a terrible source. What do you suggest as the best scholarship on policy responses, since it's your field? EllenCT (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Radicalization" can apply to the intensification of any ideology whether it is religious, political or secular. It is not peculiar to one generation, one system of belief, one geographic area. Yet, the only specific examples that is given is radical Islam. In order to improve this article, more examples, from throughout history (like the religious wars in France, Jewish fundamentalism, Stalinism, etc.) need to be provided for this article to have a neutral POV. Right now, its exclusive mention of Islam means that some readers will a) get the wrong impression that radicalization is exclusively Muslim or b) see the bias and just stop reading the article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{POV}} and {{globalize}} tags because even the "homegrown" examples here discuss Islamic Jihad exclusively, and thus completely ignore Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Cliven Bundy, Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Jim Adkisson, David Koresh, Dennis Rader, the Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. And that's just from the US alone. This article, as it stands, is the most disgustingly racist piece of claptrap designed to suck off the teat of Homeland Security under Republican purse strings imaginable. EllenCT (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking right Walrus068 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed; it's got a fair balance now. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more experienced editor may want to review the "see also" banner under "Varieties and commonalities" > "Right-wing". While Indian topics deserve to be covered in the article, it's odd that all of these articles were linked at once (edit made 15 Jul 2024) and all of them primarily focus on terrorism perpetrated by Hindu populations. Given the focus of the section, this should probably reflect a broader perspective. jobosno (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the lead section there is a process for Islamic radicalization credited to the NYPD. The content is problematic because (1.) it does not meet Wikipedia's lead section guidelines; (2.) the content as whole does not fit into the article (which is about elements of general radicalization around the world) because the NYPD content is one public safety organization's theory of Islamic radicalization in the United States. Can someone find an appropriate way to integrate it into the existing article while meeting Wikipedia's guidelines? Otherwise the content is open for being removed at a later time. Djrun (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current content under the sub-section Prison (The radicalization process/Individual pathways) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for relevancy (WP:ROC) as it stands today. There are no statements which explains how "the "danger" and "threat" posed by Islam in American prisons" is related to radicalization. In order for this sub-section content to remain in the article, someone will need to add content with citations from reliable sources in order to meet the aforementioned guidelines. --Djrun (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djrun: I found some potentially reliable sources for this section. See this related article: Jihadist extremism in the United States#Places for radicalization. Jarble (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two main references for that article are now dead links. Do you know if they have been archived anywhere?Djrun (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! As part of a course assignment, I am working on edits for this page. I would like to add the UNESCO definition of radicalization to the page as well as the role of the Internet and social media in radicalization. Vchurchill (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the big emboldened "Terrorism" Widget in the top right this seems to heavily heavily slant "radicalization" with "violence"/"terrorism". I am concerned that is not always the case because to my understanding a radical view does not have to have a violent or terrorist connection. In particular I am concerned the Template:Terrorism may have WP:UNDUE prominence on this article's footprint. As such I am concerned the article may not be neutral on the subject.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radicalism does not mean violence. It varies from society to society. While it may be radical not to support violence in a society, it may be radical to support violence in some societies. What I'm trying to say is that violence may be a radical idea, but it's not within the definition of radical.

This article needs to be re-compiled, it seems like an extension of the terrorism article Silahtar1923 (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be your own misunderstanding, perhaps prompted by similar-sounding terminology.'Radicalism' is not the same thing as 'Radicalisation', and your ideas of non-violent radicalism in no way contradict any modern scholarship on radicalisation.

I'd suggest reading some or all of the following if you want to understand all the terminology properly:

Mark Sedgwick (2010) The Concept of Radicalization as a Source of Confusion, Terrorism and Political Violence, 22:4, 479-494, DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2010.491009

Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen (2010) Violent Radicalization in Europe: What We Know and What We Do Not Know, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33:9, 797-814, DOI:10.1080/1057610X.2010.501423

Arun Kundani (2012) Radicalisation: the journey of a concept. Race & Class, 54(2), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396812454984

Peter R. Neumann (2013) The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs, 89(4), 873-893. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12049

Clark McCauley & Sophia Moskalenko (2008) Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, 20:3, 415-433, DOI:10.1080/09546550802073367

Alex Schmid (2013) Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review. ICCT Research Paper. 2A00:D203:9FC3:0:6998:4E99:DDD4:BDAF (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit bizarre that the "leading theories" mentioned in this article are the work of McCauley and Mosalenko as well Robert Barrett. Frankly, none of these individuals have produced work that is regarded as especially critical and significant when it comes to the study of radicalisation, and their work seems pretty derivative. Both in terms of academia and public policy, there are many authors who have contributed far more important theories but who have been wholly excluded. Some of these include, in no particular order:

Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt. They are the authors of the so-called 'NYPD Model' of radicalisation, holding that Islamist terrorists move from 'Pre-Radicalisation', to 'Self-Radicalisation', to 'Indoctrination', and 'Jihadization'. Whilst hotly debated by academics, their work is nonetheless very important, as it has influenced the thinking of the FBI and many other US organisations.

Marc Sageman. His work is of really critical importance, regardless of whether you agree with all of his conclusions. In his 'Bunch of Guys' theory, he demonstrated how many groups of friends could essentially self-radicalise without being exposed to recruiters. There is also his concurrent model of radicalisation, sometimes called the four prongs, which relies on an interplay of 1) a sense of moral outrage, 2) an ideological framework to interpret events, 3) resonance with personal experience, and 4) mobilisation through networks.

Quintan Wiktorowicz. His work heavily built upon social movement theory, and was based on a study of Al-Muhajiroun members. He emphasised the importance of 'cognitive openings' that can lead people to reassess beliefs and values. His model included four stages of Cognitive Opening, Religious Seeking, Frame Alignment, and Socialisation and Joining.

Fathali Moghaddam. His model of a "Staircase to Terrorism" is also very influential. The 'Ground Floor' consisted of people with feelings of perceived deprivation; the 'First Floor' of those who fight perceived unfairness; the 'Second Floor' of those who channel discontent towards a target or scapegoat; the 'Third Floor' of those who begin to justify violent opposition to perceived injustice, and who network together; the 'Fourth Floor' of those who join terrorist groups; and finally the 'Fifth Floor' of those who commit terrorist attacks.

All this aside, there are still many others. For instance, Scott Gerwehr and Sarah Daly with their model of a 'seed crystal' of radicalisation, as well as Randy Borum and his work on grievances. There are also titanic scholars in the field of terrorism studies who are very worthy of mention, including the likes of Peter Neumann or Alex Schmid. 2A00:D203:9FC3:0:6998:4E99:DDD4:BDAF (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• C-Class Terrorism articles
• Top-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles