=== Full Protection for Two Weeks? === 

 Note: There is a parallel discussion at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. Go there to request to have the article unprotected; doing so here will generally be ignored.  |  |   

  
 This is absurd. This page is locked from editing for "two weeks."  Among other travesties, it is unclear when the two week period started and when it ends.  It also keeps the page locked in with incorrect information, poor formatting, incorrect grammar and outdated facts.  This is no way to run a site that touts itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and that should reflect reality.  This instead results in the freezing of an incorrect article that will be sourced by individuals and organizations around the world (such is the power of Wikipedia) as "truth."  If violations of policy occur, deal with the individual editors that are violating the policy.  Whoever has put the page lock in place is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I am very disappointed in this action.    
 :Wrong place to complain about this. Here  is the right place to make your feelings known.    
 ::Proposals on the talk page are being discussed, and when consensus is reached, they are posted to the article. This is actually a much better way to run wikipedia than through the flurry of edit warring that was going on. If you think some fact is "incorrect", then bring it here.  '  

 :Is this an argument against semi-protection too, comrade? )    
 *Good the longer it's locked, the more irrelevant it will become. The article shouldn't be viewed as a place to influence voters. I have faith in the American people to vote the way they always do; the way their parents did.    
 **If you have any specific complaints, bring them here.  '  
 :* Er... this sort of thing is absolutely not our concern. What people do or don't do with their vote has no bearing in what we do. And that's speaking as a dirty liberal who's pushed for discussion on including some negative stuff and tried to slam the door as well on some negative stuff.  ()()  

 *My confusion is understandable. This too is symptomatic of the way the controversy surrounding this article has been handled. Why is there not a top banner on the article explaining the lock date, unlock date, and process for discussion? Some of you apparently have been engaged in protect-unprotect wars for several days and assume that all of us are up-to-date on every nuance of the drama.  I am really disappointed in the way a few people have handled this situation. It has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia at a time when it is most in the spotlight.  As for discussing changes on the Talk page and then bringing them to the article, that's absurd as well. I'm not going to go through the Talk page to discuss every little change in a misplaced comma, spelling error or subject-verb agreement.  You all have to understand the wide-ranging reach of Wikipedia articles and trust that, despite the POV tendencies of some, a lot of us just want to get the grammar correct.