This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Barack Obama: The Novel should not have been deleted as a link. The person deleting it claimed that it was not the purpose of this page - but it is. It is a disambiguation page. Where else would it be listed? The person also deleted the entire article on the book claiming it was a hoax, even though the book is available for purchase. Both should be added back by someone. 209.178.210.100 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you mean the book published by Blend Publishing, the same organization of which the author of the novel, J.M. Dunne, is president? And that does not have an ISBN?KDS4444Talk05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, people keep replacing double redirects on this article. I really can't fathom the MOS stuff they are quoting, but I'm sure that the MOS does not intend to violate the long-standing policy of avoiding double redirects see Wikipedia:Double redirects.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding what double-redirects are. These are all simple redirects. 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
We link to the target article NOT to a redirect page. Why on earth would we link to a redirect page? If you don't like the format then use piping - don't link to a redirect page. This makes no sense.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense in two ways: first use of the word dismbiguation in the title (of the redirect) makes it clear that the reader is going to a dab page and also so that in the future when (if) a primary meaning comes along and the dab page needs to be retitled as on the redirect page, changes to other pages will not be needed. Also it is recommended by mos:dab ... and what harm can it do? Abtract (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page has been around a lot longer than you have been editing. If you think the practice needs to be changed, I suggest that you bring it up on the discussion page. older ≠ wiser01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No No No. The practice is that we don't link to redirects. Guidelines are supposed to reflect practice not dictate it. The guideline is simply wrong. How long I've been editing is beside the point, but you've obviously researched it, and badly, since I've been here since early 2005.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the disambiguation guideline does represent widespread practice on disambiguation pages (which are not articles and are subject to somewhat different standards than might be applied to articles). However long you may have been editing here (your edit history only dates to early 2008 and I missed the note mentioned you previously edited as User:Doc glasgow), your presumption regarding what is or is not wrong or what is or is not current practice regarding disambiguation pages is mistaken. And even for article, there is no actual guideline to NOT link through a redirect. In fact the relevant guidance for redirects is Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. older ≠ wiser02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seconded. This is a very common given name. That such an idiosyncratic redirect should be fully protected is also rather irritating. --dab(𒁳)08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm fine with it being something other than a redirect to Barack Obama, though I don't know how that decision was arrived at. Would the suggestion be to have Barack go to Barack (given name), or to Barack (disambiguation)? This may have been discussed before somewhere. Also I think the only reason the redirect was protected was because it's an obvious vandalism target. No matter what we end up doing with it the odds are good that keeping it protected makes sense. Dbachmann I would suggest maybe posting a note about this issue at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack (given name), since conversations about what to do with Barack may have previously happened at one or both of those places. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (strongly) with Bigtimepeace. This article should not redirect to Barack Obama, but rather to a DAB page that list Obama as one of the possible meanings.LotLE×talk09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are only two other articles on Wikipedia with the name "Barack", both infinitely less significant than Barack Obama, I recommend restoring the redirect to Barack Obama. The only significant people with Wikipedia articles and a name etymologically linked to 'Barack' are known primarily by spellings other than Barack (excepting Obama's own father, who is in any case linked to in Obama's article..), so the overwhelming majority of people who do a search for "Barack" will be looking for the U.S. president (just like the overwhelming majority of searches for Reagan go to the article that redirect points to, Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan (disambiguation) lists sixteen different articles instead of just 3). Besides which, once Barack redirects back to Barack Obama, everyone will immediately see it at the top of the Barack Obama article (either linked as Barack (disambiguation), or, considering that there are only two other articles on this page, perhaps instead linked to the most common (and most similar) alternative spelling of the name, Barak (disambiguation), which will make all those other "Bara(c)ks" much more prominent and easily found, not less. :) -Silence (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect. Barack Obama is certainly a far more popular article, which is precisely why we don't want an unnecessary DAB for its first line. Those occasional readers who only search on his first name will have no trouble clicking the link, but we should not make the other (less widely read) uses buried excessively to no good purpose. LotLE×talk23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Silence makes a good point, and one that I had been unaware of. I had not known of the template to put two DAB links on one line. Since we are going to have one DAB line at the top of Barack Obama anyway, putting two links there would not be notably "noisier". LotLE×talk18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one article would be any more "buried" under my suggestion than it currently is: Barack (brandy). Which... is a one-line stub. And the trade-off for this is that one of Wikipedia's most important politician articles, Barack Obama, will be less buried (by what is probably the 3rd-most common search term for him). No other article than these 2, the brandy and the politician, will be substantially affected. And the effect to Obama's readers will be uniformly beneficial: We already have a dab at the top of Barack Obama (linking to Obama (disambiguation)), and we have the technology to include two dab links on one line. The wikicode is {{Redirect4|Barack|Obama}}. It looks like this:
I realize that this talk page has been dead for three years now, but I have just changed the redirect to send readers to Barak (given name) instead of Barack Obama. I have generated an article for the given name "Barak" which contains a link to the Obama article but which discusses the Arabic and Hebrew origins of the name and provides citations for the same. This seems like the appropriate direction to take things, given the discussion above and the creation of the new article.KDS4444Talk21:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that ANYONE that is typing Barack is looking after that. Besides that the given name is less associated to it, Obama is easier to remember, spell and type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.102 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
