Talk:Massive compact halo object

Backronym
The term 'MACHO' was proposed by Kim Griest (now on the faculty at UC San Diego) as a tongue-in-cheek challenge to the other favored dark matter candidate at the time, WIMPs. The term stuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.246.40 (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey does anyone know for sure if MACHO is a backronym? That is, the abbreviation (MACHO) was created before the definition (Massive compact halo object). I just listed it on the apronym page and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's also a backronym too. See the backronym and apronym pages to see what I'm talking about. -Hyad 07:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of citations in this article. The article mentions groups, but neither names them, nor cites their papers. Rocklaura 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations?
I'm also concerned by the lack of citations in this article. Frankly, MACHOs are just as pseudoscience-y as Dark Matter itself... No wonder they can't find any in the universe. One would think we could at least list a few citations of where the pseudoscience was published? Mgmirkin 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article could indeed use some citations. I have added one.  You might also consider reading the papers before dismissing the work of others as pseudoscience.  Or if you have already read them - how about some help in adding citations to the articles?.  FYI, some MACHOs have been found, just not enough to dominate the mass of the galactic halo.  --Reuben 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Also, There is no citation for this passage under 'Theoretical considerations' - "These observations show that a large fraction of non-baryonic matter is necessary regardless of the presence or absence of MACHOs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.26.65 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What the acronym stands for
After looking at several listings for 'MACHO' on dictionary.com, it would appear to me that it stands for Massive astrophysical compact halo object. Should the "astrophysical" be included in the subject of the article? Im.a.lumberjack 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Varying definitions
I'm concerned that there are two usages of MACHO being used in this article:


 * MACHO=something that explains dark matter
 * MACHO=a massive compact halo object

I think the problem is that there is confusion about the definition and the original purpose. The article explains that MACHOs cannot account for *all* of the "dark matter" in galaxies, so it's use as *the* explanation of dark matter is failed. Therefor, I believe the article would benefit from a consistent usage of the term MACHO to mean "massive compact halo object", and usages that imply it explains *all* of dark matter should be reworked. 70.247.169.197 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This plays out in some of the text as a

Wrong article title
Nobody calls these objects "Massive compact halo objects". The title of the article needs to be changed to something that people do use, either "Massive astronomical compact halo objects", "MACHO", "MACHOs", or "Macho (astron.)".Mollwollfumble (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My Internet search finds several sources that use "MAssive Compact Halo Objects". Please start a discussion (see WP:RM for instructions) to decide whether it should be "Massive astronomical compact halo objects". – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated conclusion
The conclusion "Therefore, the missing mass problem is not solved by MACHOs" is not substantiated in the article. Based on this article, brown dwarfs or smaller objects, such as black snowballs, could still account for the missing mass. Experimental arguments should be cited ruling out brown dwarfs and Oort like objects or the text should be modified to leave open this possibility. Aoosten (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)