` controversies]], a daughter article. '''''  :: Maybe I am not making myself clear.  I did not come here to start a firestorm.  I do not think the criticism section should be expanded, but I do see an issue puttting a criticism in the intro, as it will cause some editors to elaborate in an effort to add their own POV for balance.  There should be no criticisms in the intro.  You say there was a consensus, but I have read your archives, and I saw no consensus.  I did see an attempt for arbitration, but it failed, so for you to say a consensus was met is just laughable.  There is no consesus on Wikipedia and there never will be.  And your arguements are futile as new editors (like myself) are welcome at anytime to stir up the waters.  If this were a ``feature`` article I would be more hesitant, but it isn't even listed as a ``good`` article, which means I have every right as you to come in and muck things up for you.  That is not my intent, but clearly you have no desire to assume good faith, so I am just as happy to dig in my heels.  The choice is yours.  You can cooperate and we can discuss how this article can be improved or you can stick to your guns with your silly argument of consensus.     :::You know what? I'm done. Three months of work and discussion simply disregarded as ``silly`` and ``laughable``. This just proves that every person who ever left wikipedia was right. I cannot continue to make the same points in regards to the same asinine arguments. I'm removing this page from my watchlist and this article can descend into chaos for all I care. I'm simply over it. Everything the editors of this page have done to improve the article is obviously meaningless. The rest of you can do whatever you wish; I don't care anymore. '''''  Consensus building effort *Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_15#Should_FNC.27s_alleged_conservative_bias_be_mentioned_in_the_article_introduction.3F *Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_FNC_allegations_of_bias  Consensus building effort by no fewer than 17 editors (not even counting anonymous comments) *Talk:Fox_News_Channel/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_Wording_of_the_intro  Malformed RfC in Bad Faith in which consensus was upheld Editors who participated *Aaron *Gamaliel *Blaxthos *Isarig *AuburnPilot *Edders *FeloniousMonk  *Ramsquire  *Rama *Cordless Larry *Cbuhl79 (later brought up on RfArb charges due to conduct) *Mrmiscellanious *GTBacchus *Doldrums  *Tbeatty *Blueboar *Doldrums *Kevin Baas Not everyone agreed on every point, but every name you see gave input and issued opinion on what became the final compromise version of the introduction.  Every point you have raised was rased, and addressed, in the discussions referenced above.  So now, you're saying the work of eighteen named editors and several anonymous contributors is laughable?  That is the most serious violation of WP:AGF I've ever seen, and speaks volumes about your credibility on this issue.  /   :If the statement been in the introduction of any article of any group, organization, committee, etc etc the same argument would be put forth, and I would point out the same bias error. Fortunately this type of opinion does not seem to be wide spread amongst other similar orgaizations. I am not here to put my own POV in the article. I am here to make sure that any critical mis-placed opinions are either put in their proper place, or fully explained which is what my last edit did do. ::This is what your 'source' says, just prior to what you are citing - :::There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. '''More striking is the re