Talk:Agartha

can someone add Agartha in popular culture and it's role in neo-nazism and right wing extremism?

title Avistemp (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you been reading about either of those things? If so, it'd be useful if you said where, it might be usable as references. Possibly, I can get something about connections with neo-Nazi movements from Arktos, one of the existing references, if not, but I've been leaning on that one rather a lot as it is, there just don't seem to be a lot of decent secondary sources that discuss Agartha - as for the appearances in popular culture, I don't know any or if I do I can't remember, so I can't really do that unless you tell me what appearances you were thinking of. Wombat140 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I saw you removed my section on neo-nazi use, and I thought it would be good to discuss the relevancy of the addition. The term's use in neo-nazi spaces has been mentioned above, and the ProPublica article had an image displaying its use- I was unsure if I should add that image to the article as additional evidence. Either way, the term was used and is a relevant addition to the page in my eyes. Bunniemeow (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bunniemeow There's probably something out there that connects Agartha and far-right extremism but none of your used sources did, so the edit was WP:OR. The image was a random social media screenshot, that the article does not explain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fair- it's a pressing topic and not one really reported on beyond the trill mag (medium.com) article i cited- I can keep looking Bunniemeow (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bunniemeow Please check if your sources are WP:reliable before you add anything. Medium is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: F24 Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 14 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElaborateLabyrinth (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ElaborateLabyrinth (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Before anyone complains about Godwin 1996 as a source

Adventures Universal Press, while a fringe publisher, did reprints of a lot of good books about fringe topics that aren't fringe. This is one of them, it was previously published by Thames and Hudson and received a positive academic review + every other mention I can find of it seems to be positive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Well, I can cite the Thames and Hudson version if you want, but textually it is the exact same. Do you want me to do that? I don't believe that later republication by a questionable publisher later makes the original publication unreliable, it's just the cheapest one. Godwin is a respected author on occult topics... I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable, I was just correcting an incorrect preconception I figure others might have (that the book was originated by AUP). I also was not the person who added it, it was added years and years ago; it also isn't the primary source used, it is just far more spaced out in its information used because it's less condensed and has many asides that are not included in this page. I can't think of a policy based reason a book can be retroactively made unreliable by publication in another, worse outlet. If a book's author 20 years later decides to reprint it exactly with no change in form through a self-publisher does that make it less reliable than the original? Obviously not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter who published it, what matters is the writer. He looks fringy to me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

?? The writer is also reliable, no one has disputed that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I am. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What reason do you have to think Godwin is unreliable? He is a recognized expert on occultism. His books and edited volumes were regularly published by high quality academic outlets and academic publishers, e.g. SUNY, University of Rochester, he is regularly cited and discussed positively by scholars of occultism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

For a start wp:profringe (who recognizes him as an expert?), Secondly, wp:due comes into play. Is his the only or most respected opinion. If not why give his views over prominence? Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He is published by various university publishers that undergo peer review, academics of religion and esotericism have positively reviewed his books - what more could you want for this topic area? Writing about fringe topics is not being pro-fringe. In fact, his whole source is debunking the subject matter. If you want more proof, I can provide it. We're not giving him over prominence, the chapter he wrote is just the longest piece on Agartha, it is not WP:UNDUE it is simply longer and the most respected source on this topic. It's not cited much more than the other sources, it's just more spread out because it a full chapter and not a summary. There are some other ones I was going to add they're just expensive and hard to find sources. They're also not in English when English sources are preferred. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This is why this needs taking to RSN. There are also WHOLE books on the topic. And you are using mot to change the whole tone of the article, not just using it as a cite, that is the problem. You are turning the article into a piece about HIS views. I have objected, it is time for others to have thier say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven There are also WHOLE books on the topic - no? Not ones that aren't fringe. And if your issue is of the one or two quotes from him, I can remove those. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed all information that addresses his opinion (two sentences). If you know of any non-fringe books on Agartha please tell me: I looked, and there is nothing longer than Godwin's that isn't insane in English anywhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

NO, you didn't as you do not know what I object to. OK I will comment again (last time). No you have not " Asgartha is Asgarth, an alternative spelling for the mythical Norse location of Asgard, with a final a added to make it seem closer to Sanskrit, as the story was originally placed in India" that is a claim and needs attibutatrion. "They are sometimes directly equated with one another, seen as the same", does the source say more than one person thinks this?. For starters, as I said I will now let others chip in if they wish. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That was in the revision that you reverted to and is also not cited to Godwin. It is a simple fact that Asgarth was an alternative spelling of Asgard. I removed it from the lead qualified the change with "likely" but might change it a bit more - it wasn't any one person's claim, this was said by several authors to my understanding, so I can't really attribute it but this is the generally regarded etymology. And yes, the sources do say multiple people think this, this is also not cited to Godwin (though Godwin does also say this), it specifies (in ways that this article doesnt) that this was a very specific pernicious myth among a plethora of occult writers, which is belabored at length in a way that would be undue to mention - we don't need to cover every single factoid Godwin does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I think "one etymology" or something would be better, but without saying it was the author who thought it up, because it's not his claim. Did something like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Section on Modern Day Meme / Right Wing Culture?

Agartha & other related esoteric ideas have had a revival the past few years. it's all over the internet, with most people only knowing about it from memes. I feel like there should be something in this article discussing that. There have also been additions to the mythology surrounding it & other related concepts that I feel should be noted too. Bluebanana2121 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bluebanana2121 There are not reliable sources for this "new" version of the concept, or any usage in memes. There is a single music source that refers to it briefly but music journalism is not reliable on rw extremism and it doesn't really say anything we can include. And also, the "new" version is mostly just stolen from Wilhelm Landig and Miguel Serrano. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that if something like agartha has become mainstream it should at least acknowledged ~2025-37712-29 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bluebanana2121 Esoteric neo-Nazism does already reference Agartha albeit briefly. I agree with @Bluebanana2121 that it's rapidly growing in social media streams. Just recently, an Indonesia school shooting involved a white supremacist-linked shooter on whose weapon was engraved: "14 words. For Agartha". See https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/asia/indonesia-mosque-high-school-jakarta-explosion-latam-intl. Know Your Meme has also been documenting this trend. See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/agartha. @PARAKANYAA Would it be acceptable to create a short section at the end of the Agartha page discussing it's modern use in internet culture, then link back to the Esoteric neo-Nazism page instead of relegating it to "See also" now that there are some weak sources to stand on? Greenturtle537 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Know Your Meme is a user generated source, so it isn't reliable for our purposes (WP:USERGENERATED), also it is very wrong about a lot of things. The sources of that nature also don't mention anything about it other than saying the word was used, which is a MOS:TRIVIA issue since the concept is not being discussed. We do not list every mention of the word Agartha in every book or news article, or we would be here for all time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure a one line mention counts as a revival. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the whole MediaWiki line a user generated source, as well? MaybeIfYouStannedChuu (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2025

Just revert . Appears to be some kind of attempt at a joke, but is obviously improper. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 18:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn by nominator. This was blanked by the user, but keeping this discussion is necessary for preservation. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Agartha → Agartha conspiracy theory – I propose moving the article Agartha to Agartha (conspiracy theory). Reason: The article documents a modern syncretic concept, fabricated in the late-19th/early-20th century within Western esotericism (not ancient or traditional mythology). It has since evolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory, notably adopted by Nazi occultists and embedded within Hollow Earth and New World Order conspiracy milieus. The current title "Agartha" presents it as a neutral, standalone concept, which is misleading. This violates WP:NPOV by failing to provide essential context and risks "crystal ball" treatment of a fringe idea. The parenthetical "(conspiracy theory)" is a standard Wikipedia convention (e.g., White genocide (conspiracy theory), Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)) that immediately and accurately frames the nature of the subject for readers, per WP:CONSPIRACY guidelines. Luka Maglc (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I am neutral on this issue but would like to note that if this RM is closed as "moved", the page should be moved to Agartha conspiracy theory, without parentheses. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree Luka Maglc (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have amended the proposal. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Luka Maglc (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. No scholarly sources call it this. The primary topic is not the conspiracy, all of the literature is the nonsense occultism legend kingdom. There are no reliable sources about the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory at issue is an entirely non notable unrelated topic to the history of the occultist religious concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Response to opposition: Given that the opposing editor (`PARAKANYAA`) appears to be a primary contributor to the current article, their defense of the neutral title directly conflicts with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. An editor who has shaped an article to present a fringe theory as a "legendary kingdom" is inherently not a neutral party in a discussion about properly framing that topic. Their claim that "there are no reliable sources about the conspiracy theory" is disproven by the academic sources already in the article (e.g., Goodrick-Clarke, Lewis), and their opposition seems less about policy and more about maintaining a presentation that aligns with a believer's perspective, violating WP:NPOV. Per WP:COI, they should recuse themselves from this discussion. — Luka Maglc (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

With a simple google search you can find a sea of sources calling it a conspiracy theory. Luka Maglc (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

TikTok and YouTube shorts are not reliable sources. No reliable ones that are about this topic call it that, they call it a legend, a myth. Neither Goodrick-Clarke nor Lewis call it that. Find me a reliable scholarly source that does.

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." What financial or personal relationship do I have with Agartha? Contributing to an article is not a COI, as the page you linked says. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Luka Maglc Do you have any scholarly sources? Because not one of the ones you mention call it this. This is, as far as I am aware, every scholarly source about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are just a couple, Luka Maglc (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

References

@Luka Maglc Luckily, I already own these books! Yippee.

1) doesn't describe it as that. mentions it in 1 sentence calling it solely a subterranean city.

2) doesn't describe it as that. mentions it in 1 sentence calling it solely a subterranean city.

3) doesn't describe it as that.

4) doesn't describe it as that.

5) same source as #1

6) doesn't describe it as that

7) doesn't describe it as that

8) same source as #1

9) Doesn't even mention Agartha

10) doesn't describe it as that

11) Does not describe it as that.

Did you check ANY of these sources? Not ONE says this. Not ONE! PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

One of those academic article does not appear to exist. Are you using WP:LLMs to generate your comments? Because per WP:AITALK that is prohibited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And again the source you linked in this edit summary DOES NOT SAY THIS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

see, this is where my sources came from - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=Agartha+conspiracy+theory&btnG= Luka Maglc (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Luka Maglc Do you think that because the words "conspiracy theory" and "agartha" appear in the same 500 page book you can use this to say "Agartha is a conspiracy theory"? That search would show any hits for say, "Agartha is NOT a conspiracy theory". Every single source is talking about conspiracy theories and then unrelated, Agartha. This is utterly egregious source misrepresentation, you have not even read what you are citing.

Not ONE of these sources say Agartha is a conspiracy theory. Not ONE. Some don't even exist! Again, could you please disclose if you are using AI, because Google Scholar doesn't make you cite sources that don't exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

About this edit - I didn't! What made you think I did? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Close companions? Esotericism and conspiracy theories

E Asprem, A Dyrendal - Handbook of conspiracy theory and contemporary …, 2018 - brill.com

Explains that Saint-Yves de Alveydre's original vision of the subterranean city of Agartha, intended as a secret plot to install a utopian esoteric theocracy, has since been inverted and used to fuel conspiracy theories about hidden malevolent forces.

Inverted Agartha Narratives: Notes that the Agartha narrative, initially about a benevolent secret society, now fuels conspiracy theories about various 'bad guys,' including those behind the Vichy government, the European Union, or even alien agendas and impending apocalypse.

Esotericism and Conspiracism: Discusses Agartha as an example of an esoteric concept that has contributed to the phenomenon of 'esoteric conspiracism,' where ideas of hidden knowledge and elites are central to both esoteric orders and conspiracy theories.

Save Cite Cited by 57 Related articles All 8 versions

[PDF] researchgate.net

Conspirituality reconsidered: how surprising and how new is the confluence of spirituality and conspiracy theory?

E Asprem, A Dyrendal - Journal of Contemporary Religion, 2015 - Taylor & Francis

Explains the concept of "positive conspiracy theory" as one that describes world-historical events through the secret machinations of a grand but ultimately benevolent conspiracy.

Agartha as Positive Conspiracy: Illustrates the concept of a "positive conspiracy theory" using Saint-Yves de Alveydre’s vision of the subterranean city of Agartha, whose synarchists were secretly plotting to install an esoteric theocracy.

Agartha Influence: Notes that the narrative of Agartha was later adopted by Nicholas and Helena Roerich in their quest to establish Shambhala on Earth.

Save Cite Cited by 216 Related articles All 8 versions

Of Flying Disks and Secret Societies

F Huismann - Myths of Wewelsburg Castle, 2022 - brill.com

Connects the Asian legends of Agartha and Shamballah to notions of conspiracy combined with classical esotericism in publications on conspiracy theory.

SS and Agartha: Notes that publications on conspiracy theory generally agree that the SS sought contact with survivors of the lost Atlantis, linking this pursuit to Asian legends like Agartha.

Rightist Esoteric Theories: Discusses how rightist esoteric conspiracy theories usually refer to organizations like the Vril Society and the Thule Society, which laid the groundwork for the connection between the SS, esotericism, and concepts like Agartha. Luka Maglc (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

None of these sources say these things. WP:AI summaries are inaccurate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Joscelyn Godwin · 1996

Progressing onward, the book looks at modern polar legends: including the survival of Hitler, German bases in Antarctica, UFOs, the hollow earth, and the hidden kingdoms of Agartha and Shambhala. Luka Maglc (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival

Joscelyn Godwin

Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996 - Nature - 260 pages

"Arktos is the first book ever written on the archetype of the Poles: celestial and terrestrial, North and South. It is a hair-raising voyage through cosmology, occultism and conspiracy theory leads to startling revelations about the secrets of the Poles. The author investigates legends of a Golden Age, which some claim ended in a prehistoric catastrophe, a shift in the earth's axis. This is examined in the light of the latest geological theories, as are predictions of a coming pole-shift. The perennial fascination of these ideas is shown to be part of a "polar tradition" of hidden wisdom. There are many recorded tales of an ancient race Luka Maglc (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. These do not say what you are arguing. At all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite literally they're in the descriptions of the books, also, a simple Google search would provide enough evidence that this is an alt-right conspiracy, especially recently with what's been going on on TikTok and other social medias. There are academic studies being done on this right now. Luka Maglc (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Are you reading the text you are posting? That the words "conspiracy" shows up in the same paragraph as another word does not mean they are describing any other word in that entire paragraph is a conspiracy. It has to say that. I have the book. It does not say this. Neither does the summary.

Yes because they're all non-reliable sources because slop media internet posters love to talk about this topic. NO reliable sources say this. NONE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This is universally how all scholarly sources describe Agartha, a concept made up by occultists. All they spend time doing is describing who believed what and tracing the massive amounts of making stuff up and plagiarism that was involved in its creation. And not one describes it the way you suggest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose its not a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  here is a at least one source - Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival

  Joscelyn Godwin

  Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996 - Nature - 260 pages

  "Arktos is the first book ever written on the archetype of the Poles: celestial and terrestrial, North and South. It is a hair-raising voyage through cosmology, occultism and conspiracy theory leads to startling revelations about the secrets of the Poles. The author investigates legends of a Golden Age, which some claim ended in a prehistoric catastrophe, a shift in the earth's axis. This is examined in the light of the latest geological theories, as are predictions of a coming pole-shift. The perennial fascination of these ideas is shown to be part of a "polar tradition" of hidden wisdom. There are many recorded tales of an ancient race

  Progressing onward, the book looks at modern polar legends: including the survival of Hitler, German bases in Antarctica, UFOs, the hollow earth, and the hidden kingdoms of Agartha and Shambhala. Luka Maglc (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  That source does not say that. I have the book. It does not say that. Your summary also does not say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know what to tell you. It's quite literally in the book descriptions - https://www.amazon.com/ARKTOS-Polar-Science-Symbolism-Survival/dp/0932813356 Luka Maglc (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Read wp:v the source has to say this is a conspiracy theory and not a cosmology or occult one. and wp:undue Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  here is a couple, I can find even more. Theirs so much out there to go through -

  https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/opinion/21iht-edeco.2260751.html

  https://theportalist.com/lost-world-agartha

  https://www.discovermagazine.com/hollow-earth-a-journey-through-3-centuries-of-conspiracy-theory-45291

  https://felixonline.co.uk/articles/slurs-hatred-and-nazi-ufos-what-really-hides-beneath-imperials-popular-agarthan-society/

  https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/62885/1/save-europe-tiktok-alt-right-music-movement-spreading-racist-hate

  https://globalextremism.org/post/what-is-agartha/

  https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/tiktok-brainrot-is-normalizing-alt-right-ideologies/

  https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theories-Agartha-Guy-Anderson-ebook/dp/B0G4B4F9KQ

  https://theloyalist.org/6854/opinion/agartha-a-communal-failure/ Luka Maglc (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Again, none of these sources say "Agartha is a conspiracy". They say legendary, western esotericism, mythology. NONE say conspiracy. Are you reading the sources you're posting????? You say you're drowning in sources to say this but you are yet to present a single source that actually says what you claim. AI generated summaries and every hyperlink you find on google are not helping your case.

  The 5th source's amazon description is "For over 30 years, I have travelled through the hidden world of conspiracy, tracing the stories that exist beneath the surface of accepted reality. My investigations have led me into neglected archives, private research circles, even Freemasonry itself, where I sought the knowledge that rarely escapes closed rooms."

  If you think this is a reliable source and this is the POV you want to add to this article I think this is WP:PROFRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Look I'm I'm questioning if you're a Nazi or not, and whether you even belong on Wikipedia because all of the sources, quite literally say it is a conspiracy. Now we can talk about the validity of using these sources, but Agartha is quite well-known as a nazi conspiracy theory. Luka Maglc (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Calling me a Nazi for no reason is absolutely a blatant personal attack. Read WP:CIVIL.

  You have no sources that say so! Not one! You have not provided a single article, book, or quote that says what you claim. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Due to the personal attack I have posted on ANI. Not related to the content issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Again: are you reading the text that you post? It doesn't say that. It writes that the book is about POLAR LEGENDS, and lists AGARTHA and CONSPIRACIES. Both Agartha and the conspiracies are POLAR LEGENDS. By the same logic that summary is saying that Antartica is a conspiracy theory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• We are not going to move this article based on sources that will fail wp:rs, my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hollow Earth is widely described as a conspiracy theory, and Agartha appears as a key ‘hidden kingdom’ motif within Hollow Earth lore. I hope these sources can establish wp:rs

  • https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/3b591q91h?locale=en
  • https://www.discovermagazine.com/hollow-earth-a-journey-through-3-centuries-of-conspiracy-theory-45291
  • https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/tiktok-brainrot-is-normalizing-alt-right-ideologies/
  • https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/62885/1/save-europe-tiktok-alt-right-music-movement-spreading-racist-hate
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/opinion/21iht-edeco.2260751.html |

  Luka Maglc (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH. None of these sources say "Agartha is a conspiracy" and you cannot combine two unrelated facts to make it so. Most versions of Agartha aren't related to the hollow earth at all, but a mystical conception, a purely dreamlike place, a really big imaginary cave, or not underground at all. Some are (exclusively post-Siegmeister, which only appeared in the 1960s), but most scholarship does not actually mention this/focus on this. That it is popular online is completely irrelevant to what reliable sources say, which touch in passing on the hollow earth representation. Antartica also features prominently in Hollow Earth conspiracism, as do other "mystical legend lands" that aren't conspiracy theories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per PARA. ^EF⁵ 14:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion. This is not a conspiracy theory. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a conspiracy theory, any more than Atlantis is. Yes, no doubt people have constructed conspiracy theories about Agartha, but then again people will construct conspiracy theories about more or less anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear primary topic, everything at Agartha (disambiguation) is named after this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are so many problems with this article

This article has a fundamental sourcing problem that perpetuates its non-neutral point of view. It currently relies on Primary sources/promotional materials. The works of occultists like Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, Ossendowski, and esoteric reference works (Greer, Melton) are used to describe Agartha's "characteristics" as if they were facts about a real place, rather than as sources to be analyzed. The lack of critical secondary sources: With the exception of Goodrick-Clarke on Nazi links, the article is missing foundational sources from peer-reviewed academic history that analyze Agartha as a modern fabricated myth and conspiracy theory. We need sources that study the belief system, not sources that describe its tenets uncritically. It's a Huge violation of WP:FRINGE: For fringe topics, Wikipedia requires "greater than usual scrutiny" and "explicit attribution." The current sourcing fails this by not consistently attributing claims to believers and by lacking strong scholarly context. It needs a systematic rewrite informed by academic scholarship on: The history of Western esotericism and invention of traditions, The sociology of conspiracy theories, The specific history of Hollow Earth myths, etc.

Until such sources are integrated and the article is reframed, the `{{third-party}}` and `{{POV}}` tags are necessary and justified. Luka Maglc (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

1) No primary sources are cited here. We are citing entirely secondary sources describing the primary sources. Could you point out a single instance of this article citing a primary source? The sources you suggest above that contain sigcov are the sources we are already using, which say the material you take issue with. We are describing every single version of this to a specific author. No source calls this a conspiracy theory, they call it a legend, it is analyzed like a legend is.

2) Sources about this completely unrelated topic do not exist, because that topic is not notable! The article contains basically every source about Agartha (a nonsense legend kingdom made up through decades of lies and plagiarism) available. It is a basically religious concept, the sources describe the belief. The conspiracy theory is a separate, non-notable topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I can take it to AfD, if you would like. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for an AFD. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

They are arguing that every source used here (every source that devotes sigcov to Agartha that is not an insane conspiracy screed) is unreliable. If so, the topic is not notable, as there are no other sources. I think the sources are fine, but if they don't, it is an AfD matter as the sources they want do not exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)