Talk:Scone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dutch word?[edit]

Just wondering... what's with the Dutch Loanwords here? I'm Dutch and can't think what word this would be based on, and the article doesn't seem to give any clues. Anyone? :-) 82.139.89.208 18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many etymologists believe the word scone originates from the Dutch schoon brood ("fine bread"), from the Middle Dutch schoonbroot. IndieSinger (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman?[edit]

This is sort of a wild hunch... but were scones invented to celebrate a victory over the ottoman empire? Can anybody confirm/debunk this?


Croissant were created in Vienna, duaing the siege by the ottoman empire.

No, it is a traditional Scottish bread that has nothing to do with the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

U.S. vs. UK[edit]

Is there any truth to the difference between American and British scones? I have searched the web and can't seem to see any difference in pictures or recipes. See British and American. Can someone post some evidence for any difference? Rmhermen 16:47, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've eaten scones in Canada, Texas and Britain and haven't noticed much difference -- I would even say that the American biscuit is just a big savoury scone. It does seem odd to me to see talk of "Commonwealth" scones and "American" scones. I've never seen the terms used outside this article. After all, it's not like there are official government approved recipes. -- Derek Ross

I know what you mean about the whole Commonwealth and American thing. It is used all over Wikipedia! I have never heard of Commonwealth this and Commonwealth that. It seems to me that is was just invented on Wikipedia, as a way to group the non-Americans...--HTait 05:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Off topic, Commonwealth's a well-understood phrase among native English speakers...outside of America.
As I understand it, the difference is between a scone and what's called a "rock cake" -- American scones apparently tend to fall into the latter category. I'm inclined to agree there isn't a whole lot of difference, but then I make scones with Bisquick. Haikupoet 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the main difference is that in America you can't get scones with currents in them. I may be wrong though. Mintguy (T) 15:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American biscuits are different from english scones, often made with bicarb of soda, and therefore having a lighter, saltier taste than the traditonal British scone. I would question why - on the scones page - we have a picture of American biscuits - that is also used under the heading biscuits - on that page. I would remove to delete - any objections? Kunchan (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The two are not related. Scones in America are actually rock cakes. American English gets confusing because they change the meaning of words. These words are just used by marketing to make the product more alluring to the potential consumer : Awesome, Gourmet, Unique, Tactical, Spicy, Tea etc. I have never seen a real scone in America.

It should also be noted that the "HISTORY" section of this wiki page is wrong. "The original scone was round and flat, usually as large as a medium-sized plate. It was made with unleavened oats and baked on a griddle (or girdle, in Scots), then cut into triangular sections for serving. Today, many would call the large round cake a bannock, and call the triangles scones. In Scotland, the words are often used interchangeably.[7]"

That is not a scone, it is an oat cake (more inline with the American biscuit). Bannocks and scones are related, even the same shape, but they are not the same nor are they "cake". The ingredients of bannock and scones are different but they are cooked in the same traditional ways. Whoever wrote that section is not a Scot, Polish or English maybe but definitely not a Scot. The words scone and bannock are not interchangeable at all. You either want a Bannock or a scone.

Pronounciation[edit]

From the article: In the UK, the pronunciation is split along geographical lines, with the south rhyming with "own" and northeners rhyming with "on".

Utter rot. I would guess this was written by someone who hasn't been south of Watford. The distinction is more an indicator of class than what part of the country you come from Mintguy (T)
No no, it's all much simpler than that. It's a 'scoan' when eaten with butter and a 'scon' when eaten with margerine ;-) Adambisset 12:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most British people pronounce it as sk'on (to rhyme with gone), but some people from an upper or upper middle-class background (or with pretensions to such a background) choose to pronounce it as sk'own. I'm working class, and I say sk'own. I don't think there is as strong a distinction anymore, and the wording is fairly provactive anyway ('or with pretensions to such a background)

It depends where you live to what you say. In Surrey its usually sk'own then in Liverpool its sk'on


I asked the maid, in dulcet tone
To bring to me a buttered scone.
The silly girl has been and gone
And brought instead a buttered scone.

I am from Luton (England), and I would call it a sk'own, but my mother and father disagree over this matter. My mother, of Yorkshire/Scottish ancestry, pronounces it "sk'own", whereas my father, from the South Coast (it doesn't get any more Southern than that!) pronounces it "sk'on".

I'm more inclined to pronounce it "sk'own", because it contains the word "cone", and everyone knows how to pronounce that. If it was called a "sgone", then perhaps it would be pronounced "sg'on" by everyone since it contains the word "gone". Crunchysaviour 15:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I pronounce it sk'on, but I don't see what difference it makes. Sk'own sounds awefully American or attempting to sound pretentious, but I think this changes generationally depending on which one is 'common' and the class basis evolves around this. My father says 'Sk'own' whereas my mother says 'Sk'on', but this is because my mum came to England after it was 'posh' to say 'sk'own' and thought it was 'sk'on', whereas my father grew up thinking 'sk'own' was posh. Nick Kerr 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In Oldham (and possibly other areas of the north west) people with a local accent pronounce it sk'own, but the accent's inflexion causes the word to sound very similar to 'scorn'. The plonkers. (80.229.190.214 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I think that there should be a section about different pronounciations in the article. It would inform people of how the terms came about and stuff. I'm too tired to do this so somebody else should do it. Also it's pronounced "skon" not "s'own".

On Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, the 'skon' pronunciation prevails. Generally the term refers to oat (oatmeal) scones. —OtherDave 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm mainly a southener, but both parents hail from Yorkshire, we all would say sk'one (like sk'own, but a softer 'o', I asume that's what's meant here). MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In Australia (or at least in my part of it), it's "skon". If you say "sk'own", then you are referring to the town in NSW. - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst the bubble of the north/south, English/Scots, lower/upper class pronunciation theory, but many working class Scots speakers, especially from South East Scotland pronounce it to rhyme with Joan. They don't say it with the English diphthong "ow" however. In fact, even the name John, can sound like Joan. To me, only people trying to speak like the English say "skon". So there is no correct pronunciation - it's definitely a dialect thing. If an Englishman asks a Scots speaker from the Lothians how he pronounces scone, they will invariably say "skon" to rhyme with John, mistakenly thinking that the English pronounce it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.233.80 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is fascinating. I had always assumed that the 'cone' pronunciation is an example of 'speak as you spell' and therefore strictly for foreigners who are (understandably) unschooled in the eccentricity of English spelling, which rarely conforms with accepted pronunciation (take 'cough' for example) and therefore constantly trips up non-natives. I recently heard (on BBC Radio 3 for goodness' sake) a reference to 'St John's wart' which made it sound quite unlike a flower or plant (wort - pronounced like 'worth' or 'word')!

There are two reasons for the difference in pronunciation. It starts with the fact that scones are a Scottish dish. Due to the variations of dialects in the country it sounds like there is a difference to the untrained ear, Like in America they hear "Edinburow" rather than Edinburgh. Lowlander Scot's say "scown" (rhyme with bone) but the rest of the country says "scon". The correct name for the bread is a "scon". Unlike the slightly offensive "silly girl" rhym the Scots would say : "Sitting on a large scone in Scone I ate a scone."

"Scone" is a place where they used to crown the Scottish monarchs(see the stone of destiny). A "scone" is a Scottish word for a stone. A "scon" is something you can eat. Therefore, to reduce confusion in the language the name of the bread (fit for a king sitting on the stone of destiny) was modified to "scon". In modern history it has become a class divide issue where the gentry say Scown and the peasants say "scon".

Completely different in USA[edit]

These are not at all what I'm used to calling scones. In the US, or at least in the greater Philadelphia area, a scone is a dark, irregularly shaped cake-like breakfast food. I'll have to take a picture the next time I have one, but does anyone know what the universal term for these kinds of scones are called?

Is it anything like this: [1] which is an example of an Americqn-style scone? I don't consider that dark, though. Rmhermen 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How may kinds of scone are you asking about?

In America (at least where I live in Florida), stores sell scones that are thick triangle shaped, dense, floury pastries with a tendancy to crumble, often with bits of fruit and spice in them. They are nothing like biscuits in either shape, texture, or flavor. When a British friend was visiting, he commented that our scones were nothing like the ones he was used to at home.

I don't have a cite for this, but I've heard it said that the American scone is closer to the British rock cake. The recipes (see Jane Garmey's Great British Cooking) seem to be vaguely similar, although I note that rock cakes have eggs in them and scones apparently don't. All I can really say is that when I make scones I use Bisquick, which I admit is pretty much a total cop-out and wouldn't be accepted by traditionalists on either side of the pond. Haikupoet 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the greater Philadelphia area, and have no idea what you're referring to. Inhumer (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I have been living in America for several years and I often see things called "scones" but they are nothing of the like. I am yet to see a real scone in America. There is only one type of scone and that is the traditional Scottish scone where it originally came from. I would certainly agree that the "American scone" is more like a rock cake. The first time I found a "scone" in the store I thought it was a rock cake, it definitely was not a "scone" as labeled (for the people of Britain, Rock cakes in America are called cookies). English gets very confusing between the two countries because America changes the definition of words. Some words in America are just buzz words that no longer have meaning and are often used for marketing purposes, e.g. Awesome, Gourmet, Unique, Tactical, Spicy, Tea etc. Looks like scone will be joining that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Scone-Faced"[edit]

The term "scone-faced" means someone who is dour (sullen or grim) looking. I always thought it was stone-faced, and it seems to make much more sense in context. 82.3.196.17 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one wee problem with that. Do you mean a scone or a scone ? Cant say I have heard that saying before, could you help by clarifying the region that saying comes from, or is used in, please ? Dour narrows it down a lot but that term is used in more than one region. I suspect that scone faced refers to stone faced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Circular reference[edit]

OK, the article defines a scone as "a bread thicker than a bannock". I've no idea what a bannock is, but when I went to its article, I was told that a bannock is "a bread thinner than a scone".... The Holy ettlz 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GMTA, or there's a harmonic convergence coming on. I just discovered the same thing and posted a request for clarification at Talk:Bannock (food). Lou Sander 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... now it says a scone is thicker than a bannock in scone, and that they're the same thickness in bannock. I'd fix it, but I've eaten or seen neither. Udi Raz 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always related to scones as a food of Scottish origin, and though my family roots are in Blandford, Dorset and Emsworth, Hants (home of P.G. Wodehouse), we are firmly in the "rhymes with John" camp. Though I think a comparison with "gone" and "cone" is more apt, since the difference in pronunciation is quite clear despite the similar spelling. If the preamble is shortened, please keep the section on pronunciation. It's hard to convince these savages here in California that they've got it all wrong.

I've eaten bannocks - they are usually thinner than a scone - but in some cases not much so - it is a bit of a redundant comparison Kunchan (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The scone and bannock are related, the names are related also, and they are usually about the same size. There are no set measurements for the size of a bannock or scone. The two breads can be cooked using the same method. I'm not sure where the Bannock bread originated but the word Bannock is certainly Scottish. Scones are definitely Scottish. Note that many consumables in America are fake or they have different names. Twizzlers or Hershey "chocolate" are fake foods that are banned in the EU due to food standards and false advertising laws. Scones in America are not the same as in the UK, a rock cake would better describe an American "scone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Walmart in the UK[edit]

I've noticed that in Asda supermarket in the UK, which was taken over by Walmart recently, they have started to sell things they call 'scones' which are not like what we know in britain as scones, but are just like the American scones described here. They also give me terrible indegestion. (I have to say the selection and choice of bread in Asda is poor). 80.2.222.188 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

American English is not identical to Native English. Words are often corrupted in America, mostly for sales & marketing nonsense. e.g. Awesome, Gourmet, Unique, Tactical, Spicy, Tea etc. In the Midwest where the food is extremely bland, anything with flavor is called "spicy". To the rest of the world Spicy usually means hot or curried. Everything is called "tea" these days, if a drink does not contain Camellia sinensis then it is not tea. Everything is "gourmet in America to raise the price of the merchandise even when it is not actually gourmet. Gourmet is a term used by snobs trying to impress other Americans in the same way that people say "scon" or "scown". A "scown" has a touch of snobbery to it in England but it is a regional linguistics issue in Scotland.

You can't trust American food because a lot of it is toxic therefore banned in the EU. Here is a short list of just some of the toxic food additives allowed in America, You should read the country of origin and the ingredients list of everything you buy. Toxic food additives allowed in America : http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/13-banned-foods-still-allowed-us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dutch, vs 'Flemish' etymology.[edit]

First of all some inrefutable evidence, by a reputable site on etymology on the origin of 'scone'. Then the statement, no a linguistic fact, that Flemish isn't or ever was another, different language, but merely Dutch.

Yet User:ErikWarmelink, claims that the origin is 'Flemish', without any sources to back up his POV by the way. Although I've already proven my POV, and given that there is no way he'll ever be able to back up his, I'll gladly go into details why exactly it makes no sense:

He makes the following, unfounded and unreferenced, claim:

Flemish at least was a language, ABN is a creole of Brabantic, Flemish and (West-)Frisian
  1. Flemish is not a language, not even a dialect.
  2. ABN (A name for the standardized form of Dutch) is not identical with 'the Dutch language'. The Dutch language is the name for all Dutch dialects, among them Brabantic, West/East Flemish.
  3. 'ABN' isn't a creole. Not only does it even come close to the definition of a creol language, it is merely a written standard.

Rex (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One source (how reputable it may be) isn't "inrefutable" (sic!). I do not (and did not) claim the origin is Flemish, I merely reverted an unfounded deletion: the article stated that the word entered Scots via Flemish. After that, a certain user (Personal attack removed) claimed on User talk:ErikWarmelink#Unfounded reversions that Flemish never was a language. Please note that my revert does not state that Flemish is a language, it merely links to Flemish Language (because the original did). Of course my reaction should have been more constructive, but, frankly, I have had it with the POV-pusher. If he has problems with "Flemish Language", he can change the link to Flemish (linguistics).
Rex, if the word didn't enter Scots through Flemish, how do you explain that it is scone and not shone? Of course, it could also be through Frisian, but during the time of the first attestation in Scots, there was more trade with Flanders. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You are the unconstructive, unsourced POV editor here. These are your exact words:Flemish at least was a language, ABN is a creole of Brabantic, Flemish and (West-)Frisian. You therefore claim exactly what you deny claiming: that Flemish is a language. Also, you changed Dutch to (UNSOURCED CLAIM BTW) Flemish twice, thereby changing its origin to Flemish. Something you also deny. I suggest you drastically alter your behavior towards me. Fast.Rex (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) My revert in the article space doesn't say that Flemish is a language (well, perhaps the hidden link does), but I definitely didn't change Dutch to Flemish as the first revert shows. The summary for the second revert could have been more careful, I will try to (Personal attack removed) Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
How old are you? I'm seriously beginning to doubt you're even an adult. I am here to disprove (done, BTW) your nonsense and to make wikipedia reliable. My log has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is a (futile) attempt to discredit me. Sad you need to hit that level. You say 'you'll try'? You merely will, or you'll be made, because I will report you next time I see even the smallest personal attack. Cheers.Rex (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). Your log hasn't a lot to do with the matter at hand, which is the etymology of "scone", but it does relate quite a bit stronger to the point you keep making: Flemish should not be called a language differing from Dutch. Once again, how do you explain that it is scone and not shone?
If you want to report me: Indeed, it would be futile (Personal attack removed). Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you really seem to have problems understanding this, I wasn't making a point, I was presenting a fact. There's a monumental difference between those two. I could go on to explain to you that to Anglophones k and x sound similar, and that k was common in early modern Dutch but what you really should do is go to the library and get a book on the subject, that way, in the future, you'll actually be able to start or take part in discussions concerning this field of expertise. I'm assuming of course that that was your intention, to discuss, if you merely looking for trouble, I wouldn't go to the library at all.Rex (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally about the subject at hand. Could you propose a good book on the pronunciation of early modern Dutch before 1513, especially the pronunciation north of Flanders and Brabant? Anyway, the Scots language does differentiate k and x, so if scone entered English via Scots, the difference seems important. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My edits were always about the subject at hand. You were the one with personally fueled edits. Remember? Cheers.Rex (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ow btw, Scots (as does English) differentiates between k and x, however they are not interchangable (unlike in certain early modern Dutch dialects) i.o.w, no single Scotish word will begin with x, that's why schoon (sxo:n) became k.Rex (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That explains why the word changed. It doesn't explain scone instead of shone. BTW, when will you report me? Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If it explained why the word changed, then it also explained why it became shone.Rex (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem with your explanation: it only explains why it changed, it doesn't explain why it became scone, instead of shone. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It does exactly that. Apart from that, if you think I'm wrong just present a book that proves me wrong. Simple as that.Rex (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Middle Low German[edit]

The OED gives the etymology as "Perh. a shortened adoption of MDu. schoonbrot, MLG. schonbrot ‘fine bread’." Middle Dutch / Middle Low German can perhaps offer a solution to the Dutch/Flemish debate? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that would explain scone instead of shone. Inititial 'sk' does exist in current Low Saxon, but in the Netherlands, it is limited to a narrow line along the Vecht and Regge Rivers. Besides, there was limited contact between Scotland and that region around 1500, as far as I know. On the other hand, I don't know much about the pronunciation in Hanse cities further to the east (or even if that initial 'sk' was more widespread in the Netherlands) around 1500. The OED is definitely a more reliable source than I am. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Very likely so, but it's not our job to speculate on how the change took place, just to provide an accessible digest of established secondary material; likely as your explanation is, it remains WP:OR. Since "Middle Dutch" is a collective name for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries we can perhaps leave it at that and put our energies into more constructive edits? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Middle Dutch was not a term for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries. Let's all try to stick to what we know. Like always I see a lots of vague claims by EWarmelink while no sources to back anything up. Not how Wikipedia works.Rex (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps you should go and edit Middle Dutch. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this : "Middle Dutch is a collective name for a number of closely related West Germanic dialects (whose ancestor was Old Dutch)" Is a very different statement from "Middle Dutch" is a collective name for all the West-Germanic dialects of the Low Countries". Very different.Rex (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
@Rex Germanus: a source for "limited to a narrow line": http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/weij005nede01/weij005nede01ill60.gif Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your point being ... ?Rex (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My point being that no sources to back anything up was a bit premature. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you think you've just backed up with that link?Rex (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
@Paularblaster: Both the original and Rex' version of the article (and all three sources) agree that the origin of the word is (well, OED says "Perh.") Middle Dutch. Middle Low German and Middle Frisian were spoken in the Low Countries, but as far I know no sources consider them part of Middle Dutch. The difference between the original and Rex' version is whether the borrowing was directly from Middle Dutch or through an intermediate language. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, 'Flemish' is not an intermediate language. You say it is a language, I say provide literature, you refuse. That's this discussion in a nutshell. Rex (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about scone, not whether Flemish is (and more importantly, was at the time of the borrowing) a language. But if that is your main reason for deleting itself via Flemish, why didn't you react to my proposal to change the link from Flemish language to Flemish (linguistics) (the former is a redirect to the latter anyway)?
Whether Flemish is and/or was a language (in each of the meanings of the word "language") is an interesting debate, but this (the article about the English/Scottish word scone) is not the best place to have it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed Flemish: A) Because it suggest Flemish is a language, B) It had no references.Rex (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I quote the article (both your and my version): According to Merriam-Webster. Erik Warmelink 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not supposed to qoute wikipedia, you're supposed to qoute sources. MW is an authority on what exactly that applies here? Rex 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
MW may not be the authority on the etymology of English words, but it certainly is an authority on it, far more than almost all contributors to wikipedia (including us). Erik Warmelink 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get the essence of the English Wikipedia do you? Even if I was 'the' authority on English etymology it wouldn't matter. Wikipedia requires SOURCES not OPIONIONS.Rex 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What reason is it which does disqualify MW as a source in your opinion? Erik Warmelink 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
@Paularblaster: You have not yet reacted to the point made by both Rex Germanus and me that Middle Low German isn't the same language as Middle Dutch. This edit seems to quote your source rather selectively. Erik Warmelink 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I never "made that point". Get your facts straight.Rex 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, then. What point point did you try to make? Erik Warmelink 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't even know what you're talking about do you?Rex 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are any Scones American?[edit]

I've lived in the USA all of my life and I've never considered a scone anything but British. In fact I never ate a scone until, in my 20's, I lived in Canada for a few years. Of course these days you can get anything anywhere. And all quick breads are similar. However when I think of American quick breads I think of biscuits (in the American sense), muffins, corn bread and perhaps griddle cakes and johnny cakes. But I don't think of scones as an American food.20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg

They have them at Whole Foods. My local grocery store has also started baking them from time to time, and it is a pretty low-end store. I think the scone has arrived. Lou Sander (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Scones are notoriously difficult to make so I doubt a low end grocery store would have the skill needed. I have never seen a real scone in America but I have seen rock cakes sold as "scones". I can only suggest going to Scotland to see what a real scone is like. It is related to the Bannock but scones tend to be lighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Scones Popularity?[edit]

Here in New Zealand, you could have scones served in tearooms before the 1990s. As tearooms are being steamrolled by cafes they have disappeared from dining out scenes. These days you have to buy them in supermarkets or bakeries, or make your own at home. Is it the case as well in other countries? --JNZ (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scones are popular in Australia, just yesterday I was at a function where afternoon tea was provided in the form of scones :) 152.91.9.219 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not such a good photo[edit]

The article's lead photo, "Runny hunny.jpg," is from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and was taken to illustrate the honey, not the baked item. Since scones are not common in the U.S., and since such scones as there are in that country tend to be triangular in shape, I think it's safe to say that the baked goods in the photo are "biscuits," not "scones." While it is recognized that the two items are similar, IMHO a different photo, more legitimately an image of "scones," should be used at the top of the article. Lou Sander (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Totally agree with the above comment - the photo is also used on the biscuit page. I propose that this photo be reomved Kunchan (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following photo be used instead until a pure scones photo can be found

Scones with clotted cream and strawberry jam. As commonly eaten in a Cream Tea

Kunchan (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vegemite Scones in Australia?[edit]

The article currently claims "In Australia, popular varieties include the vegemite scone." I question the accuracy of that claim, particularly since there's no reference given. I am an Australian and I've never heard of anyone ever serving scones with vegemite. They're typically served with Jam and whipped cream. --Lachlan Hunt (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This Yank thinks the Vegemite scone is probably a prank by somebody who knows about the song by Men at Work. Lou Sander (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scones as American biscuits[edit]

the article starts saying scones are the same as American biscuits - to the point that receipes can be interchangeable (paraphrased) - I would urge that we remove this as it is a misconception and not correct. American biscuits are more of a soda based product, saltier in taste (than even a savoury scone), lighter in texture, and not as 'cakey' as a scone. It is much closer to the bannock. Although some biscuits may have been mislabled by the ignorant as scones in the States - those who taste a morning biscuit product, and a scone in, say, Starbucks (a poor example) can surely taste and see the difference Kunchan (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on biscuits or scones, but as far as my knowledge goes, I agree with Kunchan. Lou Sander (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did a little original research that discredits the claim that biscuits = scones. I compared several American biscuit and scone recipes, and found consistent differences. In recipes from a single Food Network episode, both articles had equal amounts of flour, baking powder, salt, and shortening. The biscuits had 2 tablespoons of butter, 1 cup of buttermilk, and 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda. Instead of those ingredients, the scones had 4 tablespoons of butter, 3/4 cup of cream, 1/3 cup of sugar and 1 egg.

Other recipes showed similar differences. The dairy liquid in the biscuits varied, and some biscuits lacked butter. The scones always had butter, usually a lot more than any biscuit. The scones always had sugar and egg, while the biscuits never did. Scone recipes often included optional raisins, cranberries, currants, etc.

I conclude that the claim about interchangeable recipes is probably incorrect. Lou Sander (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No one doubts that what Americans call biscuits diifer from what American call scones. The claim is that British recipes for scones are not the same as the sweet cakey American scones. Are you certain you looked at British scone recipes? Rmhermen (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the trouble with original research -- I only looked at American recipes. Now that we've somewhat pinned down the difference between American scones and American biscuits, we need to see what British scones consist of. Lou Sander (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More original research: I looked at a bunch of Internet recipes that claimed to be for "British scones." They had a lot of butter. They had sugar. I don't think it proves anything -- just because a recipe claims to be British doesn't mean it IS British. We need somebody to look at some actual Brit cookbooks. For now, I want to see documentation of the claim that "many recipes (for Brit scones and Yank biscuits) are actually identical." I don't believe that they are. I can't find any. I find scones are buttery and sugary compared to biscuits. Lou Sander (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rmherman - actually I am doubting that American (or British scones) are different from American biscuits. The article states, under Descritpiton "British scones closely resemble a North American biscuit (many recipes are actually identical)" - I am moving that this be removed. Kunchan (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about removing the comparison between British scones and American biscuits, too. I propose to remove the entire "Description" section, which is unsourced and confusing, if not misleading. Another justification is the photo of six British scones. Only the cheese scone has any physical resemblance to an American biscuit. From what I can tell, (but I'm not expert on British scones), the resemblance between British scones and American biscuits is superficial at best. It would be good to hear from an expert eater or baker of British scones, though. Lou Sander (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the "Description" section with a new and more pointed one, and included a source for the claims it makes. Lou Sander (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have made changes to this section, including what seems to be original research. Please don't do that unless you can provide a verifiable reference. These differences are cultural in nature, and while everyone from either culture has an opinion about them, not all those opinions are supported by reliable sources. Lou Sander (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Scones, which developed in the UK, can be purchased in any grocery shop and are 100% offered in the 'round' shape. Millions of these are probably consumed every day and sold in major retailers: Tesco, Sainsbury's, Waitrose, M&S. All UK schoolkids are also taught how to make scones - and they are also taught the round shape. The triangular form have come in via Starbucks. The picture given shows some regional varieties that are in different shapes - this is far from common. Now - as it is commonily knowledge in the UK thast scones are round, it is hard to find a citation for the fact. This does not mean though that this is opinion or original research. If someone can suggest what sought pof back-up is needed I could perhaps provide. Would links through to supermarket homepages? A well known UK cook like Mrs Beeton or Delia Smith? Otherwise I don't think we are going to get a printed assertation that they are circular - as it is a given. As an editor from the UK, I can give you my personal experience of 39 years of eating scones - surely we need to take a pragmatice approach - they are more often circular than triangular (really that shape is quite rare) Kunchan (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clockwise from bottom: Hot buttered tattie scones next to a cheese scone, shiny and flat treacle scones, and a milk scone above a fruit scone.

In spite of this photograph of Scottish scones, some anonymous editors keep trying to tell us that scones are always round. Do I smell vandalism here? Or is it original research, or just an uninformed editor? It's a puzzlement. The final lines of THIS RECIPE from the UK talks about the traditional triangular shape of potato scones. Lou Sander (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the comment above - and your recipe is for a potato scone - which is a regional variant and not the common dish. A recipe from Mrs Beeton 's http://www.foodbeam.com/2005/08/29/when-i-am-craving-for-sugar-i-make-delicious-scones/ and Delia Smith http://www.deliaonline.com/cookery-school/how-to/how-to-make-scones,24,AR.html

the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/scones_1285.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talkcontribs) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, scones originated in Scotland. According to the photo of Scottish scones, triangular shapes predominate. I don't doubt that there are many round scones, but somebody needs to find an authoritative source from the UK. Hopefully it will recognize Scotland as well as England. I was able to find some American cookbooks that have scones sections, but of course they aren't from the Sconish Motherland. See the section below for a suggestion. (BTW, while individual recipes give some indication of shapes, and while life experience counts for a lot, neither of them are really reliable sources for the shapes of scones. We need cookbooks or other sources on baking.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've given up the will to live on this one - I've shown the BBC (which is British as can be) and several famous British chefs (you can wikipedia them) - including the great Nrs Beeton - have shown that they are round. I also live in a country that sells and consumes millions of these - which is the UK - which Scotland is part of, last time I looked. I think it's more than enough to change it to round until conclusivee proof shows they are triangular. Mre Beeton's recipe can be found in Mrs Beeton's Household Management, the Delia recipe in Delia's How to Cook; however I'm not sure what it would take to convince you so I'm givng up - cause it's only scones in the end. Lou, I would suggest that you ask every British (ie. from the UK, ie from the country that INCLUDES Scotland) what shapes scones commonly are..I know the answer you will get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talkcontribs) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a native Scot I can tell you that scones are Scottish. The chefs on the BBC are mostly charlatans that are married to directors or other influential people at the BBC. The cooking shows are sponsored by the major grocery stores that have a vested interest in selling certain products so corruption is ubiquitous at the BBC. As for the shape, I have seen both. Traditionally the scone is baked like a Bannock, or a "round", that is scored into triangles. It is not very common to see the smaller round scones and if memory serves me right the round scones are made with pastry cutters (cookie cutters). The scone and bannock are related and they are usually about the same size. There are no set measurements for the size of a bannock or scone. The two breads can be cooked using the same method but the ingredients differ. I'm not sure where the Bannock bread originated but the word Bannock is certainly Scottish. Scones are definitely Scottish. It is called a "scon", just to clarify that issue. I have never seen a scone in America, only rock cakes sold as scones. Although both countries speak English I have found that they are no longer the same language. If you want to do a search on the subject I strongly recommend you use Google.co.uk and not the American google.com because the result are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Needed: A section about shapes[edit]

We need some referenced material about the shapes of scones. Various editors have their opinions, but they don't cite sources. I've looked at a lot of recipes from the UK, and a lot of scones from the US, but I don't have anything conclusive. Scones seem to have several "traditional" shapes, depending on where they are and who is speaking. I've seen 1) roundish, dropped from a spoon onto the griddle or pan, 2) roundish, made with a cutter like an American biscuit, 3) triangular or wedge-shaped, cut from a large circular piece of dough, and 4) square, in the US and in a few commercial UK scones. See the above paragraphs for some discussion of the matter. Lou Sander (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Online says that scones are "rolled into a round shape and cut into quarters before baking on a griddle." I regard EB as a reliable source with British roots, but I'm guessing that other sources would take issue with them on shape. Lou Sander (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Other sources would take issue with them on so many things - especially being cooked on the griddle - which again is only some specialist scone or the bannock - as the vast majority are cooked in the oven - so I think I would also take issue with the EB Kunchan (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If other sources would take issue with EB, what's needed is to find some reliable sources and cite them. It's not good enough to advance your own opinion, or to say that it's obvious, or to say that lots of people agree with something. I don't know a thing at first hand about UK scones, but as far as I can see, the EB's claim is from a reliable source and is confirmed by the photo in the article. The assertion that British scones are usually round is, so far, not very well supported. Lou Sander (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lou. In the BBC recipe for "Classic Scones" [2] might be helpful: they are circular (Option 2). Certainly in a British supermarket, scones are almost always be round. See e.g. [3]. Having said all this, the BBC recipe for "Rich Scones" [4] talks about cutting wedges from a circular piece (Option 3). (I wouldn't be especially surprised to see a square one either, tho it wouldn't be the norm.) 87.112.91.140 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely true that we can find U.K. examples of round scones, triangular/sector of a circle scones, and at least a few square scones (one of the supermarket scones looks a bit square to me). Of the round ones, it seems that most are cut with a cutter, but there are mentions of ones that are dropped onto a baking sheet. It also seems true that in the U.S., scones tend to be triangular (but the U.S. is not the home of the scone). Further, it seems that there are griddle scones and oven scones. What is needed is a source, preferably from the U.K., that discusses this whole situation. Surely there's a book over there that does that and can be quoted or paraphrased here. (The Goldman reference discusses it, but it's a U.S. source, and scones are just a minor chapter in it.) Somebody from the U.K. needs to help us out by going to the library, finding a good reference, and quoting it here. I'll try from this end, but U.K. sources are scarce over here. Lou Sander (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that discusses shapes and cooking methods, and incorporated it into the article. It's not an impeccable U.K. reference work, but it's better than what we had before. Lou Sander (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should find a "reliable source" for the history etc.. In the meantime, I've added another weblink. I think some supermarkets do non-circular scones in their "premium" lines, perhaps to set themselves apart, but that is not the norm [5]. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I had seen that CakeBaker source and chose not to include it. They said that early scones were of fine white flour and baking powder, which is in conflict with many other sources, which say oats, not fine white flour. Also, baking powder is a 19th-century invention, while scones are much older than that. My conclusion: CakeBaker isn't reliable. (I'm not taking it out, though.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me throw a quote from the OED into the mix: "Scone: A large round cake made of wheat or barley-meal baked on a griddle; one of the four quadrant-shaped pieces into which such a cake is often cut; more generally, a soft cake of barley- or oatmeal, or wheat-flour, baked in single portions on a griddle or in an oven..." 128.232.1.193 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys are looking in the wrong place. Use Google.co.uk. and forget about the BBC or the non traditional supermarkets that corrupt everything they get their hands on. It is not a British food it is a traditional Scottish food. It was traditionally cooked on a Girdle, (griddle in English). The girdle was used in a time when people had wood burning ranges in the house that was a cooking and heating fixture. The girdle was suspended above the fire and the scone was baked as a round that was scored into triangles. The scone is a short bread that is related to the bannock but the ingredients a slightly different. Round scones came much later and the method is to use ramekins or cookie cutters. I'm a native Scot and all my relatives and friends make the traditional triangle scone (pronounced scon). Good luck with the your future research on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ingredients[edit]

Here is a list of ingredients for some Apple scones made in the bakery of a smallish U.S. supermarket: Enriched flour bleached (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or cottonseed oil, sugar, diced apples, water, dextrose, dried corn syrup, modified corn starch, egg white, egg yolk, baking soda, cinnamon, nonfat milk, salt, erythorbic acid and citric acid (preservatives), artificial color, natural & artificial flavor, soy flour. Glaze: sugar, water, corn syrup, agar agar [sic], artificial color, potassium sorbate (preservative), citric acid, natural & artificial flavor, locust bean gum, mono & diglycerides. Contains: soy, milk, eggs, wheat.

Grandmum, custodian of the ancient family recipe, is rolling over in her grave. Lou Sander (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For removal[edit]

Didn't make the original removal - but an uinknown editor has brought this to attention:

"The baking of scones at home often involves a certain mystique, closely tied to heritage baking. They tend to be made from family recipes rather than books, since it is often a family member who holds the "best" and most treasured recipe in their files"

This is a horrendous statement - and although referenced is obviously POV of the author. How can any encyclopedia state that baking contains 'mystique' - a subjective judgement is ever I heard one. And 'heritage' baking is a strange concept probably not known outside of the US; if known there. This phrase sounds contrived by the author of the reference. Additionally, there is no evidence that scones tend to be made from family recipes (most are commercially made) - and again the words best and most treasured is ridiculous POV and holds no place here. Yes this statement may have a source - but it is a badly done piece of work and I move for it to be removed. Kunchan (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the strongly-held opinions of editors, the source has something valuable to say about scones, and it isn't just some blogger going on about what his grandma thinks. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiablilty, and this statement is verifiable. I don't see what "objectivity" has to do with it--the guy is making observations about British cultural matters. And it may be true that most scones are made commercially. A source would be nice. In any event, there ARE home made scones, and we have a verifiable source that says something about them. It's not "obvious" (to me) that anybody's Point Of View is being advanced by what he says. Lou Sander (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not entirely obvious what the fellow means by "horrendous," or "POV," or "strange," or "ridiculous." And the article doesn't claim that scones "tend to be made" from family recipes. I don't really agree with the "sounds contrived" or "badly done piece of work," but of course those are subjective opinions. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lou - how do we pout this one up for further discussion - in the past when I have produced sources they were never acceptable to you. I would like to take this one forward - but have some impartial advice. I still hold that this xstatement should be removed; that it is not true that baking scones holds a mystique; and the point about a family member is subjective, personal and not wideley held. The point about Wikipedia is not just verifibility - it's also accuracy. Kunchan (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am all for improving this article. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'll look again at the sources you provided. As I remember it, they were basically recipes for round scones. Nobody is saying that some scones aren't round. Verifiable, reliable sources ARE saying that there are other shapes. Lou Sander (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I just added some material about the wide availability of round scones in the UK. I don't have a reference for it, but it seems that it's obvious to people from the UK, and I doubt that anybody would challenge it. (But of course I'm a Yank, so I need to be especially careful about unsourced statements about Brit culture.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation section needs to be fixed?[edit]

There seems to be a discrepancy between the article and reference #5, the full text of which is available online. The reference says that 65% pronounce it /skɒn/, while only 35% pronounce it /skəʊn/. The reference also says that 99% of Scots prefer it to rhyme with John. I don't know much about IPA, but I think that the article has it backwards. (Vandalism?) Being a Yank, I also don't know which is the U English pronunciation and which is the Non-U English.

Would someone who knows IPA and U- vs. Non-U please fix this up? As you do it, please match up John and Joan with the IPA stuff, so that we who eschew IPA won't be confused. Lou Sander (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And another thing, the IPA looks like it describes the U-pronunciation, but no self-respecting Scottish speaker would use a dipthong like that unless they were taking the mickey! U-speakers and Scots may well both pronounce "Scone" to rhyme with "Joan" but then they have rather different ideas on how "Joan" should be pronounced. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it. The article now matches the reference (it previously had it backwards). I removed the unreferenced "U" and "non-U" claims. Lou Sander (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


There are two reasons for the difference in pronunciation. It starts with the fact that scones are a Scottish dish. Due to the variations of dialects in the country it sounds like there is a difference to the untrained ear, Like in America they hear "Edinburow" rather than Edinburgh, Galf rather than Golf etc. Lowlander Scot's say "scown" (rhyme with bone) but the rest of the country says "scon". The correct name for the bread is a "scon". Unlike the slightly offensive "silly girl" rhym the Scots would say : "Sitting on a large scone in Scone I ate a scone."

"Scone" ("Scown") is a place where they used to crown the Scottish monarchs (see the stone of destiny). A "scone" ("scown") is a Scottish word for a stone. A "scon" is something you can eat. Therefore, to reduce confusion in the language the name of the bread (fit for a king sitting on the stone of destiny) was modified to "scon". In modern history it has become a class divide issue where the gentry say "scown" and the peasants say "scon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation[edit]

I just reverted an edit that used a different IPA symbol than the one used in the reference. The one in the reference is /skɒn/. It is available online for anyone to see. The one I reverted is /skɑn/. I'm not very knowledgeable about these symbols, but I'm reluctant to allow one in the article that is different than what is in the reference. If somebody wants to change it, they need to explain themself here. (I'm the first to admit that there might be a good explanation. We just need to see it.) Lou Sander (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?[edit]

Is the 12 January inclusion of a long definition from the OED a copyright violation? It looks as though it's verbatim from the dictionary. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I deleted the picture of scones with honey. It's been here before, and is really a USDA photo of honey and American biscuits. Also, what happened to the former close-up of a scone with jam and clotted cream? I thought it summed up "scone" pretty well. Lou Sander (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That image is moved to clotted cream. There is clotted cream and jam in the new picture to. But I wonder about the color of that ex-picture. It was kind of green, more like an avocado dip... People might get the wrong Idea about Cream Tea.

Warrington (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation again[edit]

I've signed in for the first time in Lord knows how long in order to correct a mistake in the article. The reference [1] in the text states that "3.1.1. Does scone more usually rhyme with John or with Joan? or even with June? British dictionaries have usually preferred /skɒn/, while recognizing the existence of /skəʊn/. The Scottish proper name Scone, though, is /skuːn/. The polling figures were 65% for /ɒ/, 35% for /əʊ/, the latter gradually rising in popularity (oldest, 30%; youngest, 38%). Regionally, there was no important difference except that Scots overwhelmingly (99%) prefer the vowel of John." This means that scone (as in John) is used more, and dictionaries typically prefer that version. I'm changing the text accordingly. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are those statistics coming from ? As a native Scot I'm finding those numbers very dubious, that aside the correct form is a "scon". Here is why : There are two reasons for the difference in pronunciation. It starts with the fact that scones are a Scottish dish. Due to the variations of dialects in Scotland it sounds like there is a difference to the untrained ear. In America they hear "Edinburrow" rather than Edinbur'huh (Edinburgh the city), some Americans say what sounds like "Galf" rather than Golf etc. Lowlander Scot's say "scown" (rhyme with bone, Joan, clone etc.) but the rest of Scotland says "scon". The correct name for the bread is a "scon". Unlike the slightly offensive "silly girl" rhyme the Scots would say : "While sitting on a large scone in Scone I ate a scone."

"Scone" ("Scown") is a place where they used to crown the Scottish monarchs (see the stone of destiny). A "scone" ("scown") is a Scottish word for a stone. A "scon" is something you can eat. Therefore, to reduce confusion in the language the name of the bread (fit for a king sitting on the stone of destiny) was modified to "scon". In modern history it has become a class divide issue where the gentry say "scown" and the peasants say "scon" in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

With all respect to Woodland Fairy Acres as a maker of scone mixes, I don't think their web site qualifies as a reliable source, especially on the etymology of this very old word. If there have been debates about it, we need to see them elsewhere than in a commercial site devoted to the sale of scone mixes. Just my opinion, of course. Lou Sander (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The user's edits are consistent with self-promotion of a business. I have reverted the insertion. JonHarder talk 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps putting this material back in. I've reverted it, based on what is discussed here. The source is NOT reliable, IMHO. For example, Woodland Fairy Acres scone mix company has a tiny, if even existent, reputation for fact checking. Information to the contrary would be welcome. See WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I once again reverted this material from an unreliable commercial source. It belongs in an advertisement, not an encyclopedia. "Popular belief", indeed. Lou Sander (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There were other unsubstantiated etymological claims in this paragraph. I removed them and provided a reference for those that remain. Lou Sander (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not going to get an authentic recipe from a commercial source. Just take a look at the bread in your grocery store. Bread needs about 5 ingredients. How many "ingredients" are listed on the commercial bread and how many of those ingredients, BHT, BHA, colors, EDTA, Bromine, sodium benzoate, MSG, GMO etc. have no business being in bread ? The majority of, if not all, processed food is corrupt, they are not traditional recipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Cream Tea[edit]

Cream teas traditionally consist of scones, jam and clotted cream (not just cream as the article says). In fact, it's surprising the cream tea (and its Devonian/Cornish origins) hasn't got its own section here or even its own page. I'm not sure of its global reputation, but it's highly celebrated here in the UK. 212.183.134.131 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See Cream tea. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Floral scones[edit]

The claim about floral flavors is unsubstantiated by a reference. It seems to be a remnant of past persistent efforts by an anonymous specialty scone maker to insert a commercial promotion into the article. These floral scones seem to be, at most, an unusual, unimportant variety, unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia, let alone a long mention that includes the names of multiple flowers. Unless someone demonstrates that this is not the case, I intend to remove all mention of floral flavors. --Lou Sander (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite fine with that. Mangoe (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Savory U.S. Scones[edit]

The article presently makes an unsourced, and incorrect, claim that all scones offered in United States coffee houses are of the sweet triangular variety. This seems to be implying that Starbucks is in fact "all us coffee houses" as I know of several such retailers in Central Pennsylvania and Upstate New York that sell savory varieties. I can also point to more then a handful of recipies in american sources for savory scones, which would be quite odd if the product was not ever eaten here. 173.163.96.185 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yelp is not exactly a reliable secondary source, given its nature, but it can be very indicative of the accuracy or lack there of of unsourced claims. Here reviews for a California Coffee House make quite clear that they too sell both Savory and Unsavory scones at that location. So its not true on the East coast, nor does it appear to be so on the west coast. I think the statement needs to go or be substantially modified. http://www.yelp.com/biz/cafe-delmarette-santa-cruz 173.163.96.185 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Should lexicology be first?[edit]

As interesting and relevant as it is, the lexicology of the word "Scone" is not why I searched for this page. I was looking for the history and varieties, primarily. I think the Lexicology section should be bumped down lower- maybe to the end of the article. Mghoffmann (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation - yet again[edit]

I'm surprised no-one has noted the lines from John Betjeman's "How to get on in Society" (satirising lower middle-class usages), which is clear in its denigration of the "rhymes with Joan" (or in this case, stone) pronunciation as pretentious and non-U:

Milk and then just as it comes dear? I'm afraid the preserve's full of stones; Beg pardon, I'm soiling the doileys With afternoon tea-cakes and scones.

Like some other usages in Nancy Mitford's "Noblesse Oblige", it seems that northern working class usage and southern upper class usage here coincide, leaving the wretched middle classes swimming in a linguistic maelstrom of their own making. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Pogatschi[edit]

"In Hungary, a pastry very similar to the British version exists under the name "pogácsa".""

The hungarian Pogatschi are made with yeast, totally different in taste and "bite".

84.183.117.100 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

History[edit]

It should also be noted that the "HISTORY" section of this wiki page is completely wrong.

"The original scone was round and flat, usually as large as a medium-sized plate. It was made with unleavened oats and baked on a griddle (or girdle, in Scots), then cut into triangular sections for serving. Today, many would call the large round cake a bannock, and call the triangles scones. In Scotland, the words are often used interchangeably.[7]"

That is not a scone, it is an oat cake (more inline with the American biscuit). Bannocks and scones are related, even the same shape, but they are not the same nor are they "cake". The ingredients of bannock and scones are different but they are cooked in the same traditional ways. Whoever wrote that section is not a Scot, Polish or English maybe but definitely not a Scot. The words scone and bannock are not interchangeable at all. You either want a Bannock or a scone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.140.132 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)