# Talk:Invisible Circles

I've removed the hyperbole-filled description of the album's concept and musical style. It would be good if someone familiar with the record could write a more balance desciption.
Radagast1983 April 14th 2006, 11.55

I am not sure what fixed staff d.p.r.p. has on retainer. It isn't a reliable source regardless of whether it passed a GA review. Sikonmina (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are not sure, bring it to discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, instead of deleting everything like you appear to like doing. Your opinion counts for one and I don't agree with you about this source. It is independent, it has and editorial staff and it has been active for 26 years. By the way, a discussion was opened on the topic in 2014 without reply:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Is Dutch Progressive Rock Page reliable?. Until a consensus is reached, please do not delete sources that may be considered reliable. Lewismaster (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page but let's move the discussion here. On your talk page you state that reviews are written by the team. The statement was actually a response to the question: "Can I send my own review to you for publication on DPRP?". So really, the site is still WP:UGC and the page you cited still does not state "fixed". Sikonmina (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. DPRP is not a platform for any user to add every kind of content or review. Sputnikmusic is such a website, where any registered user can add his own review of a record. Just like any other reliable music magazine or webzine, apparently on DPRP only a small number of people work on the publication of content. The writers review what they receive and have some knowledge about. Regarding Invisible Circles, the reviews were round table ones, not relying on just one opinion. In fact, the reviewers' opinions were divergent. The other references are about a band interview and the date of a concert. I can't see how they can be considered unreliable. If we cannot use as sources the huge amount of interviews released by artists to websites all over the world, a large part of wiki articles about music would lose most of their content. Lewismaster (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Here there is something about the team: [4]. Here [5] says that: "The team has kept on changing of course, but slowly. We're a group of 25 people now." Lewismaster (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The writers of DPRP still express their own views. DPRP is only a website and content is still created by unpaid individuals. Maybe most articles about music should lose most of their content. Sikonmina (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources  out there. Content that relies on WP:UGC simply can't stay on wikipedia since we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And let me stress again that my removals were in accordance with WP:REFSPAM. Sikonmina (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I find that what you wrote does not make much sense.
"The writers of DPRP still express their own views", just like every music journalist and reviewer that I have read in my life. Check out any issue of Rolling Stone to read the most grossly opinonated reviews on Earth.
"DPRP is only a website", just in case you had not noticed, 2/3 of the music news, interviews, reviews and sounds are published through websites, often way crappier than DPRP. Labels, bands and artists in general promote their products through the Internet, using any channel available and to deny the fact that the info is out there in different formats than in the past is silly and laughable.
"created by unpaid individuals", I don't think that being paid is required for being independent, actually I think that money usually goes against independence. It is rather funny that you write something like this when we do the same on Wikipedia.
"Maybe most articles about music should lose most of their content." What you wrote here is very serious and unsustainable. You don't show respect for the work of hundreds of other contributors, who spent hours researching and writing articles that you deem unworthy. Wikipedia have rules, but the first of them is that it is a collaborative effort, not a one man show. I think that it would be much more useful for Wikipedia if you research better references and citations, instead of bluntly ereasing the work of other editors, hiding behind WP:REFSPAM (which have nothing to do with this article). Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Is DPRP a reliable source is the question. What you are saying is all websites are reliable isn't it? Why do you think DPRP is a reliable website? "just like every music journalist and reviewer ..." could create a website and post a review whether or not they are reliable or not. i could post a review and describe a song with my own adjectives. if i were to review a whole album and review every song on that album, does that make my review reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought that my points about DPRP were clear. It has a fixed staff of 25 members, it has the editorial guidance of people who have been doing this job for 26 years, it does not accept user reviews, it is independent and it has reviews and links published on magazines [6] and official band websites [7][8][9]. I am not saying that all websites are reliable, but I say that you cannot refuse content from websites only because they are not in a short list on Wikipedia. In particular, I often cannot find interviews of artists and bands outside of websites or social networks nowaday. Many artists do interviews only on web radios and YouTube and what thay say can be interesting not only for the music geek, but also for the casual reader of Wikipedia who is looking for a more rounded and complete information on a specific topic. It's up to the writer and to the following editors to select the sources and the content to make an article as interesting and complete as possible. Lewismaster (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)