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)

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?

Assessment comment
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)