Editing Talk:Baked beans (section)

== Blanking content ==

{{u|Oknazevad}} is repeatedly blanking scholarly content sourced to two university press sources, by some distance the highest-quality sources we have here. What is going on? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

:What's going on is that the subsection is [[WP:UNDUE]] in its poor integration. Also, your concept of scholarly sources is poor at best, and discounts the importance cold tertiary overviews to ensure proper weight being given to scholarly consensus. Your prior outright removal of encyclopedias as sources because they didn't agree with your single monograph is clear POV-pushing. The indigenous origin of baked beans is well attested, and one half-assed attempt to discount that for unclear reasons is improper hijacking of the article. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 11:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
::Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources, and [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] in University Press books are represents the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] and so is certainly [[WP:DUE]]. These sources point out there is a popular misconception about this topic. Wikipedia has a duty to reflect the quality knowledge, not buy into the popular misconception. You cannot just blank well-sourced content. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Then it needs to be better integrated. The article directly contradicts itself currrently. That's just poor writing. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 12:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Maybe turn your attention to the poorer sources and start removing those? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)