`:Emmons firing is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, to mention it again seems to me like exactly what you caution against, a synthesized cause and effect. Moreover, this entire discussion is driven by Will Beback's refusal to hear any argument he doesnt like.  As I have said over and over, this is a summary (as requested by Will Beback, i might add) and as such, should only mention what is truly important to the story. As discussed (again, with Will Beback) anyone wanting more information can follow the link to the more lengthy coverage in Early political career of Sarah Palin article. Again, as I have said over and over (and have heard no rational response from Will Beback) if the public support/outcry/response was really important, it would be mentioned in *all* the articles about Emmons/Palin, and yet it is only mentioned in some of them.  Again, look at what polifact (a source which Will Beback provided) had to say about it: ``there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time.`` and yet here we are, trying to insert a line about public outcry about a firing which our sources say isnt even related. And why are we going through all this? Is it because a number of editors think its necessary? No, as near as I can tell, only Will Beback thinks this is an issue.  Is it because Will Beback has provided us with a compelling reason to change our minds? No, in fact, Will has done nothing but say over and over again that it must be important because *some* sources mention it (but not, tellingly, the original Frontiersmen article).  This isnt collaborative editing, this isnt reasoned discussion, its Will Beback simply badgering us until everyone gets tired of hearing the argument and gives in just to be done with it (a tactic which is sadly common here). I think this whole public outcry nonsense is pov pushing and syn to boot and I dont think it should be tolerated simply because one editor refuses to let it go.     `