Talk:Musk

Untitled

Are we sure that Ambergris is not the most expensive animal product? As there seems to be no discussion on this article at all, I'm going to go ahead and change that to "one of the most expensive"Yorinaga 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Artificial musk - dangerous?

I bought some cheap musk deoderant spray from a supermarket recently. I wish it was more clear whether its harmful or not. 80.0.115.226 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what's in the spray. Do yo know whether it's nitro, polycyclic, or macrocyclic musk? Sjschen (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do animals secrete musk?

Why do animals even produce musk? Is it used in reproduction? --Zybez (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In musk deer it is said that it probably serves to attract females of the species. But I agree that this information belongs here too, and also for the other mentioned animals. -- 92.229.146.144 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Over 15 years and still nothing in the article on what function musk performs in nature. It's that exact question I came to this article for. 2A02:6B6F:E9B2:9800:EA22:A441:C2AD:8EF5 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by the term "In musk"

I recently read a magazine article whereby an African Bull Elephant was described as being in "musk".

My first reaction was to guess that this is a cyclic period of a certain frequency where the bull is more likely to produce musk and might be related to other hormones too, and that the elephant is more likely to be seek out sexual encounters during this time.

Well, that's a guess - assuming that the term "in musk" even means anything. If this is valid terminology I would expect to find it under this section ? If it's not - forget I spoke :) Kbdguy (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

-I found 3 references to this. It sounds like something that would be better written by someone with a more solid background in vetinary science than myself. - - - -Is this term limited to only certain species ? Kbdguy (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

is this factual and verifiable?

"No other natural substance has such a complex aroma associated with so many contradictory descriptions"

Can anyone produce any supporting evidence whatsoever for this claim? If you can, I won't remove it. Otherwise I'm taking it down. Mardiste (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be changed to "No other natural substance is known to have such a complex aroma associated with so many contradictory descriptions", because no one knows every natural substance there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.73.46 (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Talmudic reference to musk

The Babylonian Talmud (Berakot 43a) mentions musk (characters that seem to connote that spelling), and in the medieval commentators there is mention of a specific animal that would produce musk which was burnt in decanters on its neck (a blood-like substance that would mix with sweat and solidify). Does anyone have a modern day equivalent? It is possible that the intent is something other than musk; I'm guessing based off of the Aramaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.39.220 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?

The current version of this article is almost an exact copy of pages 234-237 of http://www.perfumerbook.com/Arranging%20Fine%20Perfume%20Compositions%20-%20Floral%20Aldehydic.pdf, which asserts copyright. It's unclear who copied from who. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's some conspiracy among multiple Wikipedia editors, the author of that book copied from us. The copyright on the second page gives a date of 2006, but the first page says 2011. It corresponds exactly (minus references, images, etc.) to an October 2011 revision. But our article developed organically up to that point, with mostly small edits by various editors. The author did a good job of removing obvious Wikipedia formatting, but still keeps Wikipedia-like section headings and paragraphs like "Galaxolide, a polycyclic musk commonly found...", which is obviously an image caption but which lacks an image in his version. Other parts of the book seem to be copied from Orange flower water and even from a Guardian article. There may be more. Lesgles (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is a backwads copy - template removed from article and backwadscopy template added above. Dpmuk (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Effect On Deer

Under the "Natural sources" section, the article states that the musk-producing gland may be removed without killing the deer; the wound will heal naturally within a few days. In "Artificial compounds", it states that the removal of the deer musk results in the death of the animal. Which one is correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.204.120 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Musk/CommentsTalk:Musk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Why is a musk more primitive than a deer? Is a beaver more primitive than a porcupine because it has no spines?

Last edited at 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So what does it smell like?

Seriously... an entire article on musk, and no hint as to what it smells like. 75.139.182.135 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: an explanation of exactly what a "musk pod" is, and where it is located on the animal. This is a serious omission. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against moving. (closed by non-admin page mover) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Musk → Musk (aroma) – I propose turning this page into a redirect to Elon Musk since he has 100 times the page views as this page. In addition, the Elon Musk page is 250 times larger than the Musk page. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's necessary. Elon's certainly a larger article and more notable topic, but I don't think he holds enough of the sway over the word Musk to push the aroma back. The line suggesting Elon at the top of the page is sufficient in my opinion. The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose hatnote is fine—blindlynx 13:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support DAB at basename at the very least, scent is probably not WP:PRIMARY for what people are looking for nowadays.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The aroma is certainly the primary topic by longterm significance. Elon is a more popular subject but it's doubtful that a large number of people are searching for him by last name alone or that those searching musk in a general reference are looking for Elon. Wikinav shows that Elon Musk is only the second most common article people click to from Musk (first place is Musk deer). From Musk (disambiguation), Musk and Elon Musk switched places as the top destination in March and April and neither had more than about 31% of outgoing pageviews. This doesn't suggest a problem with the status quo.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Ortizesp. In the same manner that, following the 2016 election, consensus no longer considered the card game article as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Trump (disambiguation) page and it became, at the time, the dab page's co-primary topic, the class of aromatic substances is no longer the primary topic of the Musk (disambiguation) page, but is, at the very least, co-primary alongside Elon Musk. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hatnote is doing its job. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose retargeting "Musk" to "Elon Musk" Since i believe both the aroma and Elon Musk are considered equal primary topics (not counting other phrases like Musk deer), i think it's a best solution to move Musk (disambiguation) to base name "Musk" instead for DAB page, and we can put "Musk may refer to" at DAB page. I suspected there's WP:NOPRIMARY case for it, so in principle i Support move the aroma article. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Myceteae. A description of nature/reality is quite hard for a person to 'beat' in terms of significance in an encyclopedia. ⇌ Synpath 12:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Textbook WP:RECENTISM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose not the primary topic.

Poketama (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad reference

The source titled "Calvin Klein's Obsession Could Be The Trick To Catching A Tiger" is referenced to claim that this DID happen when in fact the article only says that it COULD be used to catch the tiger 70.115.137.104 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)