Talk:Currant bun

Avoiding confusion with spiced buns
"Neither should be confused with a spiced bun" This is not precisely correct. A Chelsea Bun is, by definition, a type of spiced bun. For clarity, not every spiced bun is a chelsea bun but every chelsea bun is a spiced bun. This sentence might be rewritten, "The Chelsea Bun is a form of spiced bun". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C409:DA00:FDD7:8DD:C4B:BD37 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Questionable History of Chelsea Buns
There are well sourced articles and papers tracing the Chelsea bun back to the early Hanoverian period, rendering the notion that the current bun predates the Chelsea bun unreliable. Here is one example of a good source. https://londonist.com/2015/03/london-food-history-chelsea-buns I am insufficiently knowledgeable to disambiguate this page but thought I should point out the inconsistency. Ged Ladd (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Ged Ladd

Deleted fake history
The "History" section here made one claim that is not cited at all and another that was cited to Davidson - who does not mention the name given. ONE modern book (2012) makes both these claims: https://books.google.com/books?id=0qUr66030TAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false but does not itself cite sources for them. Certainly one would expect these names to appear at some point in the nineteenth century if they had played the roles claimed. Thus far, I have yet to find them. I have deleted this whole section with its misleading air of authority. If anyone wants to restore it, I hope they find substantial sources for anything they post; preferably multiple sources, since the figures whose role is claimed should have been cited more than once before the twentieth century. 2600:1700:8D40:9B60:140A:4111:A8C2:756 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)