Talk:Radicalization

Update in Progress

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).

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 1955

• 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)

Request for article expansion

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)

Note re copyright

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)

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)

Ideas for improvement

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."

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)

Mass Radicalization: Proposed policy response recommendations

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.</ref> EllenCT (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That this section is irrelevant is not a matter of opinion

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)

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)

Needs more diverse examples

"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)

Dispute tags: Why is this article still exclusive to Islam?

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)

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

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

Hindu-specific "See also" section?

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)

NYPD Islamic Radicalization in Lead Section

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)

Prison sub-section

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)

@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)

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)

Spring 2019 Update

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)

POV - violence?

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)

The connection between violence and radicalism

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)

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)

All these references do is argue that it is terrorism. He's not refering to radicalism, neither do these books.

Having personally read

Hafez & Mullins — "The Radicalization Puzzle: A Theoretical Synthesis" (2015)Clark McCauley & Sophia Moskalenko — "Friction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and Us" (2017) and their earlier articlesMarc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks (2004) argued that radicialization is not equal to terrorism also.

All these texts argue isnt about radicalism but about not all radicalization = terrorism. ~2026-26932-11 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of "Leading Theories" Section

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)

This Article is riddled with Bias

This article seems to be arranged in the fashion where it argued that radicalization leads to political violence or terrorism, extremism for example is closer related to totalitarianism then radicalization is the process of looking outside of status quo view, it isn't equal to exteremization because extremization justifies violence in itself, there for radicalization is not equal to extremization. Radical Is not the same as Extreme, anything Radical is falling out of the standard view, if the words fall outside of their base ontology then its a false equivalency, if to say that adjusting a words meaning completely changes once you add an "zation" the ontology magically changes so that it necessitates a political goal?, then this article is heavily politicized and not scholarly and hardly takes the arguments in the references which are listed where portions of the books argue that they aren't the same. Yet the article does the contradiction, if it argues contrary it should make sure to point out that both positions are true, one that doesn't promote extremism and one that does. Those books state that. But this article fails at stating it and seeing the difference when it equates all radicalization is equal to extremization. The reference materials don't even come to that conclusion. ~2026-26932-11 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Borum, R. (2011). "Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories." Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36.

   DOI: 10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1
   Relevance: Borum critiques linear models of radicalization and emphasizes the role of cognitive and social factors in shaping pathways. He argues that radicalization is not a one-size-fits-all process.

Horgan, J. (2009). "Walking Away: The Consequences of Leaving Terrorism for the Individual Terrorist." Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 1(1), 29–47.

   DOI: 10.1080/19434470802659383
   Relevance: Horgan’s research shows that many individuals leave radical groups without being trapped in a permanent state of extremism. This contradicts the idea of radicalization as an irreversible "trap."

Bjørgo, T., & Horgan, J. (Eds.). (2009). "Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement." Routledge.

   Relevance: This book provides case studies of individuals who disengage from radical groups, showing that radicalization is not always a one-way street.

Wiktorowicz, Q. (2005). "Joining Al-Qaeda: Jihadist Recruitment in Europe." International Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

   Relevance: Wiktorowicz’s work highlights how some radicalized individuals maintain ties to mainstream society while holding extremist views, challenging the "trap" narrative.

   Della Porta, D. (2013). "Clandestine Political Violence." Cambridge University Press.
       Relevance: Della Porta distinguishes between violent and nonviolent radicalization, showing that radicalization does not always lead to terrorism.

   Tilly, C. (2005). "The Politics of Collective Violence." Cambridge University Press.
       Relevance: Tilly argues that collective violence is not an inevitable outcome of radicalization but depends on political opportunities and organizational structures.

   Atran, S. (2010). "Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists." Ecco.
       Relevance: Atran’s research shows that many radicalized individuals are motivated by social bonds rather than a desire for violence, challenging the assumption that radicalization always leads to extremism.

Roy, O. (2004). "Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah." C. Hurst & Co.

   Relevance: Roy argues that radicalization is often driven by a search for identity and meaning rather than purely material needs.

Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). "The Staircase to Terrorism: A Psychological Exploration." American Psychologist, 60(2), 161–169.

   DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.161
   Relevance: Moghaddam’s "staircase model" emphasizes psychological factors (e.g., perceived injustice, moral disengagement) in radicalization, not just material needs.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Fishman, S. (2006). "The Quest for Significance Model of Radicalization: Implications for the Management of Terrorism." Political Psychology, 27(3), 461–479.

   DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00527.x
   Relevance: The authors argue that radicalization is often driven by a quest for significance, not just unmet material or spiritual needs.

Spaaij, R. (2010). "Understanding Lone Wolf Terrorism: Global Patterns, Motivations and Prevention." Terrorism and Political Violence, 22(1), 41–61.

   DOI: 10.1080/09546550903401083
   Relevance: Spaaij’s work shows that lone-wolf terrorism is a significant phenomenon, challenging the idea that radicalization is always a group process.

Conway, M. (2017). "Determining the Role of the Internet in Violent Extremism and Terrorism: Six Suggestions for Progressing Research." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 40(1), 6–29.

   DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2016.1157408
   Relevance: Conway highlights the role of online radicalization, which often occurs without physical group dynamics.

Radicalization is a linear process with predictable outcomes. Radicalization is complex, nonlinear, and varies by context (Borum, 2011; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008). Radicalization always increases group resilience and lethality. Not all radicalized groups become violent; many disengage or integrate (Horgan, 2009; Bjørgo & Horgan, 2009).

Radicalization is a "sociological trap" that isolates individuals. Many radicalized individuals maintain ties to society or disengage (Wiktorowicz, 2005; Atran, 2010).

Radicalization is primarily driven by unmet material/spiritual needs. Radicalization is also driven by ideology, identity, and psychological factors (Roy, 2004; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006).

Radicalization is always a group phenomenon. Lone-wolf terrorism and online radicalization challenge this (Spaaij, 2010; Conway, 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26932-11 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request: § Role of the Internet and social media cites no empirical study of online propagation

I have a conflict of interest here and am requesting rather than making this edit.

The issue: The § Role of the Internet and social media section rests on two sources only: Pariser's 2011 trade book on filter bubbles, and the 2017 UNESCO mapping report cited throughout the section as <ref name=":0" />. The section closes the question with the sentence However, research is mixed on whether polarisation and filter bubbles cause radicalization, with one key conclusion of the UNESCO report suggesting that “social media constitutes a facilitating environment rather than a driving force for violent radicalization or the actual commission of violence." The UNESCO report is a mapping of the existing literature, and the section itself says two sentences earlier that the report "expresses a need for continued research on this topic overall"; it does not measure how far extremist content actually reaches an exposed population. The section therefore raises an empirical question and cites no empirical study of online propagation. No maintenance template is attached to this section.

Proposed change: Add one sentence at the end of that paragraph, immediately after the sentence ending "...or the actual commission of violence." and its <ref name=":0" />:

Network studies published since have measured propagation directly rather than inferring it: one analysis of Islamic State propaganda on Twitter modelled its spread as a contagion process and estimated the rate at which users exposed to that content went on to adopt it.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ferrara |first1=Emilio |title=Contagion dynamics of extremist propaganda in social networks |journal=Information Sciences |volume=418-419 |pages=1-12 |year=2017 |doi=10.1016/j.ins.2017.07.030}}</ref>

I have kept the sentence narrow on purpose. The study covers one movement's propaganda on one platform, so it should not be written as a general finding about radicalization, and I have not put a figure into the sentence.

Source: Emilio Ferrara, "Contagion dynamics of extremist propaganda in social networks", Information Sciences 418-419 (2017), pp. 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.07.030

Disclosure: This citation is to my own work (Ferrara, sole author). See User:Emilio Ferrara.

Happy for this to be declined or reworded; I will not make the edit myself. Emilio Ferrara (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)