|This page was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Update in Progress
- 2 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 1955
- 3 Request for article expansion
- 4 Note re copyright
- 5 Ideas for improvement
- 6 Mass Radicalization: Proposed policy response recommendations
- 7 Needs more diverse examples
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.
- 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.)
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
"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.
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)