This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
So what? I think that this is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. I can understand why the fact that Biological Exuberance was cited in Lawrence vs. Texas is here; this is certainly significant information. One attack on the book or parody by a comedian doesn't seem significant or worth including. Devil Goddess (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What about all the "In popular culture" sections?! Should we remove all those references from all articles too then? I agree with the OP here; a reference should be added for the RG stand-up. If the issue here is that it was an "attack" then the statement can simply say it was parodied or mentioned or whatever.
Please read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. All references in popular culture are not necessarily suitable for across the board inclusion in Wikipedia; rather, we have criteria in place to distinguish references that are noteworthy and warrant inclusion from ones that are just random trivia. I don't know enough about the Ricky Gervais routine to know which side of the line it falls on, but it's not automatically appropriate for inclusion just because it existed — it has to be noteworthy in some way beyond simply having happened. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The article says nothing about why this book is controversial, so I removed that statement. If someone wants to talk about how it's controversial, then it can be put back in.18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)