Talk:Agartha: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

Line 69: Line 69:

:Also check, [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory]]. [[User:Luka Maglc|Luka Maglc]] ([[User talk:Luka Maglc|talk]]) 09:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

:Also check, [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory]]. [[User:Luka Maglc|Luka Maglc]] ([[User talk:Luka Maglc|talk]]) 09:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

== Their are so many problems with this article ==

== are so many problems with this article ==

This article has a fundamental sourcing problem that perpetuates its [[WP:POV|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.

This article has a fundamental sourcing problem that perpetuates its [[WP:POV|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.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
?? The writer is also reliable, no one has disputed that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am unsure a one line mention counts as a revival. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t the whole MediaWiki line a user generated source, as well? MaybeIfYouStannedChuu (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert [1]. Appears to be some kind of attempt at a joke, but is obviously improper. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Also check, Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Luka Maglc (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version