UTC Criticism of Kanin section now again longer than Kanin I see in particular as exerting a bias on the page A False Rape Denialist point of view is not a neutral point of view In particular criticism of Kanin s study is again longer than the Kanin section and written very pointedly The length alone is sign of denialist bias but including unsubstantiated accusations no methodology in Kanin s study just because it can be quoted to David Lisak is probably abusive and misleading Definitely unnecessary and in violation of a neutral point of view for an article that should focus on evidence for a phenomenon slightly more than its denial Kanin himself pre addressed the criticism of his study This information should be used to pad Kanin s section in order to appear balanced 00 36 4 April 2012