Talk:Materialization (paranormal)

Is this topic notable enough for its own article?
Seriously. This article is essentially a list of alleged feats performed by spiritualist mediums. Although I'm hard pressed to find the words "paranormal materialization" in these sources, it appears that mediums have historically claimed to make stuff appear during seances using "spirit fluid" or "teleplastics" or whatever their name for ectoplasm is/was. That's fine, however "materialization", an area of specialty within mediumship, doesn't deserve it's own article. I recommend merging any well sourced useful material to Ectoplasm (paranormal) ‬or Mediumship. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as a fine idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a basic problem: the two are different. Ectoplasm is related directly to the spirits/ghosts etc., materialization on the other hand, is a general concept. Both skeptical and channeled sources confirm that. Additionally, ectoplasm (spirit) is the antonym of material. False prophetism aspect should also be taken into consideration, as materialisation is one of their miracles. What prompts luckylouie into thinking that a merge would be fine, may stem from the possibility that some of the material in this article might actually belong to the ectoplasm topic. Logos (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I remember it well I started this article and ectoplasm is not a term that is associated with Indian miracle mongers. Andries (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The question of notability would rest on the level of discussion in reliable sources. Is this article a WP synthesis of a variety of apparently similar (OR) frauds by a variety of moderately notable charlatans? Is there a source which discusses this set of frauds together? If the sources don't identify these individual frauds as "paranormal materialization" why does WP create this identification? If a reliable source does not discuss the subject as a specific subject, where does the basis for an encyclopedia to do so originate? Aren't each of these frauds, myths and unsubstantiated phenomena covered at their main articles? What reliable source groups these all together and labels them "paranormal materialization"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Materialization is extensively treated in the book Miracles are my visiting cards by Erlendur Haraldsson. The book is about the miracles attributed to Sathya Sai Baba. The book does not openly endorse miracles and it was considered a reliable source in mediation regarding Sathya Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be sourcing for content on the article on Sathya Sai Baba, but not something tying the group of examples currently in the article together, nor enough to base an article on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You will get your answers on Articles_for_deletion/Materialization_(paranormal), but I'm sure you will never learn though. Logos (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Aw come on, that was uncalled for. Please remove the 'but I'm sure you will never learn' and then feel free to remove this comment.  Thanks.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Materialization (paranormal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603123943/http://www.archive.org/stream/physicalphenomen00carr to https://archive.org/stream/physicalphenomen00carr
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_3_haraldsson.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thepost.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=154&fArticleId=375687

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal) → Materialization – Everything else at the disambiguation page is more of a dicdef than actually mentioned in the linked pages. This is the only actual article for the term. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - fails the WP:ASTONISH test mostly due to many sci-fi usages. I also think the article might be misnamed, "materialization" was a word coined later (1870s or so) when more sophisticated spiritualists claimed to produce tangible "material" objects. Because of this, I suggest Manifestation (paranormal) as a better, broader term because it includes any evidence of spiritual presence, including simple audible or visual "apparitions", in addition to more complex "materializations". Google Ngram for evidence (hit the blue button if you don't see a graph). I think the article is conflating the two words in some spots, but I don't have access to several of the sources used to directly verify. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sci-fi meanings will be far commoner for most readers than ghosts. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I usually hear "materialize" in the form of supernatural phenomena. e.g. "The ghost materialized in front of me." I dispute that the use of the term in sci-fi is "far more common". Rather than "dematerialized", teleported things are usually described as, well, teleported.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's enough doubt here for disambiguation to be the best choice. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's enough doubt here for disambiguation to be the best choice. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.