Talk:BMW G 310 R

Not Feature Lists containing original research

@Trigenibinion

Hi there! I don't want to get into an edit war. I'd like you to indicate which of those sources contain the information "But it does not have Cornering ABS, Combined ABS, steering damper, active suspension, dynamic engine braking control, traction control system, wheelie control, voice control, cruise control, launch control, kick start, hill holder, dynamic rev limiter, all-wheel drive, quickshifter, dual clutch transmission, reverse gear, parking sensors, parking brake, automatic walking, heated seats, heated grips, adjustable handlebar, adjustable windshield, CAN bus, digital locker, loudspeakers, start-stop system, alarm, intelligent speed assistance, blind spot monitor, lane change assist, lane departure warning system, collision avoidance system, radar reflector, kickstand switch guard, airbag, eCall, hazard lights, dynamic brake light, or cornering lights" and "The instrument panel consist of a monochrome segment LCD display with engine temperature meter but without battery voltmeter, oil pressure meter, tire-pressure monitoring system, lap timer, riding modes, backup camera, navigation system, Bluetooth, Android Auto, CarPlay, weather, messaging, handsfree calling, intercom, TV tuner, radio, CD player, DVD player, Blu-ray player, media connectivity, or audio processor." I can tell from the sources that it does have a monochrome LCD, but they don't list any of the other lack of features. If the source does not explicitly say these features are not there, it is original research and is in violation of one of Wikipedia's core content policies, "no original research". See here: Wikipedia:Core content policies . It looks like I and another editor have tried telling you that this is original research and you can't have that here. Maybe you can clear it up and tell me where in the sources those lack of feature lists are. Thanks! 100.6.47.220 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion

Hi There! I saw your edit saying that the Indian video shows all of the features of the LCD, but it does NOT list all the features it does not have as you have listed above. That means what you are conducting is your own research based on the video, which is original research and is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Can you clear up for me which of those sources has this list of all the features the bike does NOT have? If not, I'll change it one final time. Also for clarification, I made a mistake on a portion of summary above regarding a separate editor and I'd like to disclose that the above user and I are one and the same. I'd like to make a good faith attempt with you to come to an agreeable consensus. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification IP. I was unaware of that since both of the IPs you used were different. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The uninterrupted Brazilian video shows that there are no other pages on the black & white SEGMENT display.Trigenibinion (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The manual has been linked. If something does not appear on the manual, it is not there. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! If it is not specifically stated in the manual, then it is considered original research according to Wikipedia's policies and can't be used. Saying it is not in the manual would not be valid. The manual doesn't say a missing feature of the bike is a built in wine cooler, but that doesn't make it notable enough to include in the article as an example. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Please show the policy where it states that if a feature is missing in the manual it cannot be listed as missing. All these are normal features in vehicles so they are notable. A wine cooler is not. You can get a cigar holder Harley Davidson grip but I have not listed it. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I stated it above. It is one of the core content policies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . Also wine cooler can be had in a vehicle as a factory option (See Mercedes S-Class). In order for it to not be original research AND not in a source, it must be easily verifiable by a non expert (IE The sky is blue). A non expert on motorcycles would likely not watch that video and easily deduce that the bike does not have a CAN Bus. Most people who own a vehicle probably have a CAN bus and don't even know it, but that's because they are not experts. As such, that information you have provided is not easily verifiable by a non expert and falls under original research. It seems like you are an expert on motorbikes, remember that the rest of the world isn't and wouldn't be able to easily verify that, so it's considered original research. In order to keep that that information, you must cite a source that it is attributable to. It specifically states in the No Original Research policy that "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." To a non expert, that information is not verifiable in the sources you cited. To summarize, if the lack of features is not verifiable in a source, it is not considered a reliable source for said information according to the No Original Research policy. Another example to refute your point that if two sources both have features; article A lists feature A, article B lists feature B. You can cite both sources and say Feature A and B exist, but what if you didn't know about Article B? Just because you only have Article A and can prove feature A exists, you are not allowed to say feature B does not exist unless article A specifically states feature B does not exist. Another issue with the manual argument is how many manuals are, they aren't always technical. A Real life example is my vehicle does not say it has a dry sump oil system, but it does. Just because it does not indicate that it does, does not make it true. The fact that my vehicle has a dry sump oil system is not provable or disprovable by the manual, another source would have to be cited. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You can have a CD changer or a DVD player on a motorcycle, so Blu-Ray would be possible. Is there any motorcycle with a wine cooler? How would not watching the video make you deduce the bike does not have a CAN bus (which it doesn't)? Trigenibinion (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I think you're making the mistake that an average person would deduce that. A person of average intelligence would likely not conclude that. Like I said, it sounds like you're an expert on bikes, but the average person is not and would not conclude that. Therefore, even if it could be deduced, it is not cited in the article or video and is therefore original research and not allowed under Wikipedia policy. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing can be deduced regarding CAN bus. I learned it from thee G 310 forum. A fool can deduce anything from anything. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! In that case you are proving that this is original research and is not allowed. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not really look for an acceptable reference for that specific piece of information. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Then all information that is not attributable to a specific reference must be removed, such as the long list of missing features, however anything that is directly citable (such as the basic monochrome LCD with engine temperature meter) can be kept. 50.200.68.54 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I found a reference for the CAN bus. Every visible feature or BMW technology not mentioned in the manual can be regarded as not present. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding the original research policy about data that is not verifiable in a source. I'll request a third opinion. It is possible I am misunderstanding it 50.200.68.54 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If the rider could use a certain feature it would be in the manual. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! That's not necessarily true. My older vehicle has a way to program the vehicles transponder key, but that isn't listed in the manual. Therefore, your statement is not true. Not only that, but just because it isn't listed in the manual as not a feature, does not mean it does not exist. Even if it was true, that would be original research and against one of Wikipedia's core content policies. 100.6.47.220 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Reprogramming a transponder key is something done by the dealer. It does not need to appear in the manual, the manual need only say that if you lose a key you should ask a dealer for a new one and tell you not to lose a code if that is required. This is a good indicator that the vehicle has an immobilizer (but you should confirm with the manufacturer). No such mention does not guarantee that the vehicle lacks one, as it is not an immediately visible feature. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, in my car, the transponder can be programmed by the user, I've done it myself, twice. So no, you are incorrect about that; regardless, my statement disproves your statement "Every visible feature or BMW technology not mentioned in the manual can be regarded as not present." This is all the more incorrect considering my vehicle is a BMW. TransporterMan has also proven that to be an inaccurate statement. Your statements are contributing to original research which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. 100.6.47.220 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it can be officially programmed by the user. That seems like a security flaw. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it is not a flaw, I was given papers on how to do it by the dealer. It is only for the lock transponder, not the immobilizer transponder, two different antennas, but that is not on topic for this. I am refuting your central point regarding original research and would like to come to a consensus regarding the sources and the statements. Can you please provide a source that lists all those as not features? In order to not be original research, it must be stated by the source such that a non expert could verify it. 100.6.47.220 (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if the dealer gave you those papers, that is not an immediately visible feature. The user does not need that information to turn the key. Any normal feature that needs some instruction to be used would be in the manual if it existed. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: My third opinion: no, it is not OK to list a bunch of this as missing just because your sources don't say they are included. This is indeed WP:OR, and not even very good research. It hard to prove a negative, and even if you could, it would not be admissible without a source. If you find sources saying certain features are lacking, you could include that and cite the source. Get your observations published in a WP:RS, and then you can put them here and cite that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

See right above. It is not a random source not listing a feature, but the user's manual. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a fourth opinion: Dicklyon is correct. The fact that a feature isn't mentioned in the user's manual cannot be cited, due to the original research policy, as a reliable source for the assertion that the vehicle does not have that feature. That's just how it works here at Wikipedia, so real-world evidence is irrelevant, but I would nonetheless also note that I've had or known a number of vehicles - I'm 70+ years old - that have had features that aren't mentioned in the user's manual or where features were mentioned in the manual which weren't actually present on the vehicle. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If a feature exists that does not appear on the manual then it should be proven, not the other way around. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Both ways around, actually. If we want to claim a feature exists, and it's not in the manual, then we'd need some other reliable source to say it exists. Best not mention the existence or non-existence of things when we don't have support for such statements in a reliable source. Frankly, I'm surprised you're having trouble understanding or accepting this. Please see Law of holes. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The manual is the authoritative source for this information, if it's not there it does not exist until the contrary is proven. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a plausible conclusion of your research. But it's not suitable for stating in Wikipedia without an actual source. Lots of things can be deduced to not exist, but we don't have any reason to add such extrapolations of sources to Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Refs 32 and 33 mention some things it does not have. Those can be mentioned, citing those sources. The rest is just a long list of OR that contributes nothing useful. Do like the manual, and write about what it has. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding not a feature list

Should the lines mentioned in Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research be part of the article based on the listed sources? 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC) 100.6.47.220 (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: – SNOW closed by nom as "No OR" in this edit. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Only any not normally user-visible features would be candidates for removal if some other source does not mention they do not exist. Marketed advanced BMW technologies would also normally be listed in the manual. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• I believe that the information about a lack of features should not stay. The information cannot be directly verified in the sources and can only be deduced, which amounts to synthesis and is a violation of the original research policy of Wikipedia. 100.6.47.220 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• This RFC seems a bit nutty and unnecessary. Why can't Trigenibinion just take no for an answer (see section above)? Take out the WP:OR/unsourced lines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above. Do not include lists of "missing" features based on OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Many features would be widely mentioned by BMW and the media as a selling point if they were present.Trigenibinion (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and they would be mentioned in our article if present, too. You can even mention ones not present, when sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. Original research does not belong in Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Note – I have requested a SNOW close, and have gone ahead and removed the unsourced statements of what what the bike lacks. If I went too far, or sources can be found that point out what's missing, they can be added back. But not just because they're not seen in the manual or in the YouTube videos. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  You have indeed removed some reported non-features, for example things that can be clearly seen in photos.Trigenibinion (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Things clearly seen in photos would not be missing, would they? Say what you think I got wrong and we can consider. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am talking about things clearly NOT seen in photos. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I suspected. Please stop talking about that, per the advice of everyone here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  There are no images of the bike with such factory features. As I see, Wikipedia rejects the scientific method.Trigenibinion (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is correct. Scientific method is original research. Do it, get it published, then Wikipedia can use it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it is not that the pictures are not mentioning the features. They are stating that they are not present. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  If the captions state that a feature is not present, we could probably use that. The pictures themselves don't state what's not in them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is evident from the pictures the features are not present. These are not little parts. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  While this is a slightly closer question than the manual issue, Dicklyon is clearly right about this one as well. Here's a basic rule for original research questions: If you have to analyze a source in order for it to support the assertion for which you wish to use it as a source, that's almost always original research. By looking at a picture and deciding whether or not something is there (and cannot possibly be there in the parts of the thing that can't be seen in a picture), that's analysis. By taking multiple similar sources and combining them to support an assertion that cannot be supported by any one of them alone (for example, two different pictures showing two different sides of a bike), that's SYNTHESIS, another form of prohibited original research. When you add into that analysis the concept that the missing thing in question has certain characteristics - it isn't little, for example - that's another analysis, and another fact that has no reliable source behind it. And, indeed, that one becomes more significant if the parts in question are not something the average encyclopedia reader would necessarily be familiar with. Finally you assert "there are no images of the bike with such factory features". That assertion is also original research: The fact that you make that claim is not sufficient for it to be relied upon. (And what often happens next in this kind of thing is that the person making such a claim gathers a gazillion things like that, in this case, a gazillion links to pictures of that bike. But it's still analysis and original research to look at all those pictures and claim either that the pictures don't show it or that its absence in the pictures proves anything. Another thing that happens here is that the editor will go and find official pictures of the thing, but that still doesn't help their case because, once again, they have to be synthesized and analyzed and synthesis and/or analysis creates original research.) As SMcCandlish points out, above, you're beating your head against very basic and well-established policies here. You'd be better off using your time to either find genuine reliable sources for your assertions or just dropping the stick and moving on to something more productive. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying one cannot use a picture to show something IS present either? Trigenibinion (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It depends, but in most cases, no. Let's say the assertion is "The Speedmobile 2000 motorcycle has white leather seats as standard equipment." A picture of the bike with white seats, even one from an official source, does not prove that the bike in the picture only has standard equipment. Nor does it prove that they're leather and not artificial leather. Let's say the assertion is that "The Speedmobile 2000 motorcycle can be obtained with white leather seats." Even that does not prove that the bike in the picture isn't a custom or special copy of the bike. A picture of the bike from an official source with white leather seats with the *caption* "Speedmobile 2000 with standard equipment" might be used, but then it's the caption in combination with the picture that's the source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why did you remove some references (videos)? Trigenibinion (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  YouTube videos are not generally considered to be reliable sources. If you think some I removed are reliable sources for something, you can say so here, or in an edit summary when you put them back, and we can consider. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Youtube is just a platform. Some of the videos come from publications with their own web sites. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Say which; I'm happy to help fix if I went too far. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• It seems a SNOW close is appropriate given the consensus at this time appears to in agreement 4 v 1 that some of the information is WP:OR and should not belong. Removing RfC 100.6.47.220 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. Clear violation of No Original Research policy.
  Trigenibinion, you made a very common error in the discussions above. You attempted to argue the information is true. That doesn't work here. Truth is irrelevant. If I reduce Wikipedia policy to one sentence, Wikipedia is a summary of what Reliable Sources say about a subject. You need Reliable sources for two reasons. First to establish WP:Verification, and secondly to establish WP:Due weight for inclusion. You cannot use logic to evade the requirement for Verification, and you cannot establish Due weight for inclusion if no sources considered it noteworthy enough to mention. I cannot write that this car lacks a pool table merely because I personally think the lack of pool table is worth mentioning. Alsee (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Truth is not irrelevant – it's just not enough, per WP:V. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• No.

The simple rule I go by is: something can be mentioned in a Wikipedia article if there is a reliable source indicating that thing (whether it be a positive or a negative).

If a source (e.g. relevant magazine article or blog) can be cited stating these items are not present, then include the statement and cite that.

[DoI: I know very little about motorbikes and have no idea what a 'CAN bus' is, never mind whether a motorbike should normally have one; having looked it up, and without having read this Talk page, I (wrongly) would have expected a m/cycle not to have one!] Kitb (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know motorbikes might use a CAN bus either, but the cited source explained why that matters in the choice of certain accessories that do or don't use the bus. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)