Editing Talk:Baked beans

{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Food and drink|breakfast=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance= low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(90d)
| archive             = Talk:Baked beans/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 400K
| archiveheader       = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}

<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
== Baked beans  ==

Common ingredients are common among several countries so individual countries do not need t be listed  does anyone want every countries ingredients for each countryy listed [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:: There are sources in the article comparing UK and American versions of the dish. The info box accurately reflected that. The UK and America are the two main consumers of the dish, and they have two different expectations with the dish. This is covered in the sources. The content should be put back in the info box. Additionally, baked beans are traditionally served as a hot dish. I don’t think it’s appropriate to call it both a hot and cold dish from a historical point of view. Some people eat cold pizza but that doesn’t make it a cold dish.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 07:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::It is incorrect to put them in the info box it's not needed and both countries use all those ingredients for baked beans depending on what recipe is being used, if it's canned or made from scratch, the manufacturer of canned beans .   The content should not be in the nxo as it's not correct and it's not needed .   The hot and cold I agreed with.  The IP address who put cold does not appear to have pasted again  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::There I disagree. The sources are clear about distinct changes made to the dish after it arrived in the UK, and differences in the canned products between the two countries. Heinz baked beans in the US is not the same as Heinz baked beans in the UK. They have different sauces. The sources also point out different culinary traditions around this dish in the two countries. There are regional variations in the US historically. That said, we live in a global society so undoubtedly the world is not so divided as it once was, but when actually looking at food traditions across time there are clear lines made in the published sources. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::You are free to disagree, you are limiting yourself to the view point of just looking at tins of baked beans while ignoring the fact that both countries have been doing them with many of the ingredients for centuries.  The article is about baked beans in general.   There is a separate page for heinz baked beans.  The country info should remain off the infobox.   Feel free to put it on the Heinz baked beans page if you feel like it belongs there  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 07:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No. We’ve been through this already, and this is continuing with your Eurocentric POV pushing. Baked beans is a Native American dish with ancient origins and not related directly to the cassoulet (which is French by the way, and not English). It predates the cassoulet by thousands of years. Heinz introduced a canned version of the dish in the foreign foods section of Fortnum and Mason in 1886. Nobody in the UK was familiar with it until then (navy beans were not part of the typical British diet or widely available in Europe at that time). While certainly some have made the argument that the dish is cassoulet like; they are not related to each other as the dish has its roots in the ancient world before colonization and Heinz was an American company taking it from its American roots. Tying the history of this dish into anything pre-1886 in the UK is just false; although undoubtedly some elements of cassoulet cooking influenced colonists who adopted the dish from Native Americans as a form of fusion cooking in the New World.

:::::::In the UK, the vast majority of people eat canned beans made by Heinz. Heinz introduced the dish to Europe and is the number one selling baked beans manufacturer in the world with a 70% market share globally. The UK is their main consumer, and most people in the UK only know baked beans in that form. In the UK Heinz baked beans are essentially synonymous with the dish as that is what most people in that country eat. You really can’t talk about this dish without talking about Heinz because it is the main product most people eat when they consume this dish globally, and the company had a major impact on the way the dish is consumed world wide. They are responsible for exporting the dish outside of the United States, and making it a globally known dish. The New England colonial dish that became known as baked beans was made in [[beanpot]]s unique to America that resemble Native American pottery. This cooking method with specific pottery was never exported to Europe because they were introduced to this dish as a mass produced canned product, and were taught to consume it in that fashion. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 08:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Did you cut and last this from a different discussion.  There is no eurocentric pushing no one mentioned cassoulet.  The subject is baked beans and ingredients used in general on the info box. No one is comparing the honey ham and mustard beans that the British cooked in pots centuries ago with onions to native beans as they used fava beans .  People eat many types of beans in the UK they are made from scratch and include many different ingredients.  No one said you can't me tion heinz baked beans but if you want to put the differences between one companies beans when made in separate countries you should use the correct page which would be the Heinz baked bean page  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Sigh, I see the attempt to lump all of these ingredients into the dish as internationally an accepted form of the dish as again appropriative and misleading and again Eurocentric as its attempting to bring in cassoulet type ingredients not extant in the original dish from New England or in the original canned products sold in the UK. Tomato sauce for example isn't typically used in the United States, and was a UK addition to the dish in the 20th century according to many of the sources cited in this article. Recipes of course don't exist in a vacuum and people are playing with recipes all the time as that is what humans do, but if we are going to present the classic version of the dish from New England it certainly would not include tomato sauce. This is a problem with a reductive info box that can't handle complex and changing and varied ideas with nuance. We should either restore the country names or delete the info box as inaccurate.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 16:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::its not lumping him into.the same dish.  It's one dish that uses  a variety of these general ingredients depending on how henfish is being made. Both countries use all the ingredients mentioned in the dish. It is not Eurocentric at all. It's not attempting to bring in cassoulet ingredients by mentioning that onion is in the dish.  It's an.article on baked beans in general and the info box just has general ingredients used in the dish and since several countries use all the ingredients mentioned in various forms of the dish. If you want the page to just be the new England version of several centuries ago then there would be no need to mention any countries or tomato sauce.  You would just put what was in the original new england recipe [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 16:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::That just isn't true. Canned baked beans in America don't use tomatoes, and our traditional recipes don't include them either. I'm sure at some point some Americans may have made them with tomato sauce, but it isn't typical and it would be viewed as a novelty. It is a UK convention of the dish and is not an ingredient used in the classic New England recipes. The info box presents the dish as coming from New England. New Englanders don't use tomato sauce in their baked beans.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Van camps a popular brand do.   All of the ingredients listed in main ingredients are used in baked beans.  If you are so bothered by the inclusion of tomato sauce being on the list on ingredients because the very first recipe didn't use it but later ones did then remove tomato sauce from main ingredients.there is no need to list individual countries on the infobox since several countries use all those ingredients ...there isn't just one brand of bakes beans now or one recipe.  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 17:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I think it is better to present that type of information in the body where it can be presented in context and with nuance in relation to the history of the dish. I had to look up Van camps as I've never heard of it. Bush's Best Baked Beans has an 80% market share of all canned baked beans in US market and they don't make one with tomato sauce. Other larger producers like Heinz (US market version) and grocery store home brands like Walmart don't use tomato sauce. It appears that Van Camps has one version with tomato sauce but many others without; making that version somewhat of a novelty food item in the US market. I do have a problem with presenting tomato sauce as a typical ingredient in the United States as multiple sources point out it is not typical in America and is more often associated with the UK version of the dish. It certainly isn't part of the classic version from New England, and we shouldn't make it appear so in the info box by listing that locale as the origin and then listing ingredients not used in New England baked beans. It's confusing and can lead to misinterpretation.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 18:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::As I said all the ingredients that were listed in the main ingredients in the info box are used in both countries as there is not just one make and there are beans made from scratch as well as canned  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 18:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== Trimming redundant content and weaker sources ==

[[Special:Diff/1291048117]] was justified to correct the history (unlikely and no good sources to support a specific US origin; [[Algonquin people]] are mainly a Quebec Indigenous nation), with baked beans having probable French colonist origin in Quebec during the mid-1500s, partly influenced by [[cassoulet]] &ndash; a [[Cassoulet#History_and_etymology|14th century French dish using white beans.]] 

There were considerable redundant sentences, out-of-order history, duplicate links, and weak, inconsistent or offtopic sources. Re-establishing that version for discussion here. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 21:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've reverted again because it's Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Revert back-discuss. Also, the infobox changes were inappropriate for the subject of the article, which is the modern dish, not theoretical predecessors. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I support the revert. There are multiple book sources supporting that it is a New England dish including this [https://books.google.com/books?id=QIFTVWJH3doC&dq=%22baked+beans%22+%22native+american%22&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=%22baked%20beans%22%20%22native%20american%22&f=false encyclopedia] in its entry on beans. [https://archive.org/details/foodencyclopedia0000roll/page/54/mode/2up?q=%22baked+beans%22 This food encyclopedia] published in Canada also calls it a dish from the Boston region. There are also lots of other book sources and newspaper articles used in the article that support this claim. No other sources call it a Canadian dish, and doing so is either a dubious fringe opinion or a misreading of the sources. I'll note, that many native peoples had a dish similar to baked beans going back to the ancient Mayan civilization according to the first encyclopedia, and it was a wide spread food throughout the Americas. The modern dish that became known as baked beans grew out of a cooking tradition in New England among settlers in that region who assimilated the native dish into their culture. See the many cited sources in the article, many of which are from reliable university or other academic presses. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 02:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::According to other sources so did other countries and they came over and mixed them all together and made America.   However though the sources acknowledge both first people and the colonists that came over and are well established food historians you say you don't trust them in regards to one thing but are happy to with others.  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 05:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::I removed the paragraph as it was originally a paragraph on how the English brought the sish over on the 17th century. Parts were removed and the paragraph then didn't state what the sources showed.   Since you say that it's well sourced  I have added ok what the actual sources state.  I trust you will take this up in chat and not edit war.  Did you read the three sources  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 05:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
* This article has some poor sourcing e.g. tabloid newspapers and tertiary sources. It would be better to use a [[WP:SCHOLARLY]] monograph such as this,[https://nyupress.org/9781479882762/the-truth-about-baked-beans/] which sets out why the designation of baked beans as a quintessentially "American" food is really a product of xenophobic/nationalist myth-making. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 04:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes I have removed several as the paragraph did not state what the sources said at all.   The tertiary source was put back by someone as well sourced as were two others it appears people don't read the sources before returning the information.   I have now added what the sources actually said so I will be accused of being eurocentric but I already said that weren't good sources and the paragraph wasnt correct  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 05:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*::In fact the more I look the worse it gets. Random web sites, fake publishers ... yeesh ... But then this is only a start classs article; a re-write is in order. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::Some of the changes made aren't what is stated in the sources  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 09:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::We should probably fillet out all the tertiary sources, since they just seem to be lazily regurgitating the origin myth later scholarship has identified. Wikipedia article should be based on [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Well tried that with two food historians who are America which lead to another 4 historians who were English but books by food historians apparently aren't a reliable secondary source  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 10:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I don't think the nationality matters. What are these other secondary sources? I see we have this[https://uncpress.org/book/9781469627144/americas-founding-food/] which is another of the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] but it's been hobbled by bracketing with a self-published website and another tertiary source. This is one of the most bizarre cases of POV-pushing I've seen on Wikipedia (and that's saying something!) [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::keith staveley references 4 other books when he mentions the dish having a precursor from the UK in his book founding food The story of New England cooking I shall get a list.  That is not saying that native Americans didn't have a dish that turned into baked beans just that the British brought similar food across with them by obviously with fava beans as haricot beans weren't native  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 11:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::All we can do is summarise what the [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] say, and according to them (from what I have seen so far) the native origin story is a myth, and there is no evidence for it. I'm not seeing why this should be hard. The fact that secondary scholarship is being undercut with weak sources is a big problem. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Ah the secondary sources I mentioned didn't make mention of native.peoples creating the dish just that the British brought across a similar dish.. yes we do need proper secondary sources  [[User:Sharnadd|Sharnadd]] ([[User talk:Sharnadd|talk]]) 15:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

== 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)
== Merge proposal ==
I propose merging [[Baked Bean Museum of Excellence]] into [[Baked beans]]. I think the content in Baked Bean Museum of Excellence doesn't warrant its own article but has enough notability to get a cultural mention in this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] problems. [[User:Duncnbiscuit|Duncnbiscuit]] ([[User talk:Duncnbiscuit|talk]]) 06:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:'''Weak oppose''', as I see no good reason to merge it. The museum content would be undue on the broader [[Baked beans]] article, but does have 3 independent reliable sources to establish notability. What's not to love about the 4th most popular tourist attraction in Port Talbot? [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 00:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''', museum looks like it meets [[WP:N]], and merging ~300 words on a Welsh museum into a ~1500 article on the global history of baked beans would seem a bit heavy. [[User:Belbury|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury|talk]]) 11:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)