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 april