Jump to content

Talk:Jonah Falcon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nvrwagon67 (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 19 September 2011 (minor edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Height

According to IMDB he is 5'9. please check it and edit if necessary

He may be a trainwreck in progress, but this article is hardly NPOV:

  • The article claims both that his body is 'modest' and 'pudgy'.
  • The 'border on homely' and 'living at home with his mother' slurs are clearly unrelated to the rest of the article and are an attempt to demean Falcon.
  • The article claims that he has only 'one outstanding attribute', though there's no evidence to support the claim that the attribute for which he's famous is the only one which is 'outstanding'.

Need I go on? And really, is Jonah Falcon enough of a celebrity to merit an article on here?

--(Heath) 24.197.25.238 19:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "modest" and "pudgy" and "border on homely" are POV, but he does live at home with his mom. I have a friend who dated him and is still friends with him. --24.251.68.181 07:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I am glad wikipedia has real important articles such as this one Prof richards 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped Off

This is a direct rip-off of the Rolling Stone story.

Wiki might like 'open source' but Rolling Stone surely will not.


Biased

I agree it's biased against him.

Agreed, not NPOV, maybe the author is just jealous: "... clearly show that he no more than 15 inches when comparing to the length of his forearm". 212.79.87.141 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed YES Board Member Editing

Some obsessed YES Network board member is trying to attack him by editing the last line.

  • * * *

And there he goes again. Entry "repaired".

  • * * *

Bonerman2006: Get a life.

Okay then...

Please refrain from personal attacks, on other posters or the subject of the article. Thanks. NickBurns 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a few more things out of the article - I'll reiterate what's at the top of the page: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. NickBurns 02:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work

Having just watched a documentary on Jonah Falcon on British TV last night, I can't help feeling that this article really fails to do justice to the man. The documentary is the only source of knowledge that I have about the man, but this article has no comment on the difficulties with his sexuality, or the enormous length of time he spent as a professional on the New York club circuit in the 90s (the comment about him declining to act in porn seems slightly disingenuous). I can't help feeling that there is a lot more information about the man that is in the public domain that a well written article (by someone who knows more about him than me) should include. Legis 08:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legis - to the best of my knowledge, other than the HBO special, there was only one Rolling Stone article, and it was focused on his endowment, if you will....I think it missed much of what you suggest. If you have seen a documentary on him, you may have more info than those of us in the States. NickBurns 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just did work on Definitely Maybe as a Clinton Campaign worker. Since it's frowned on to add material in your own bio, feel free to add it however. 67.100.144.18 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am in this weeks The Onion (NY) paper (p43, Vol 42, No. 49) JAF1970 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Randomly came across an image of him, not suitable for the article so I'll leave it here for reference for future editors. Image (nsfw)

Erect?

Are there any erect pictures of him? I can't find any. 68.0.113.54 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun. [1]

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The linked picture was moved to [2]. As you may have guessed from the URL, it's just a picture of a rock. ;_; If JAF1907 is really Jonah Falcon, he could just take a picture of his own erect penis and post it under a free license. Since he hasn't done that, he probably doesn't want such a picture on this article. Herorev (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loss of consciousness?

Due to the massive amount of blood that is needed to achive a full erection, Falcon tends to lose consciousness before a full erection is obtained. Film star and porn pioneer John C. Holmes experienced this same problem.

This sounds more like a joke than anything else. If nobody has a citation for this, it probably should be removed. dougmc 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a joke. Several porn actresses have said that John Holmes never got fully hard due to the impending blackout. Actress Bunny Bleu, in the documentary "Wadd: The Life and Times of John C. Holmes" said that John could not get fully erect due to the blood loss issue and that "doing it [having sex] with John was like doing it with a soft kind of loufah." Since Falcon's penis is somewhat longer than Holmes', and he is shorter in stature, Falcon could possibly be even more susceptible to this problem than Holmes.

That may be so, but let's leave it out of this article until we get a verifiable source for it. -Will Beback · † · 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would consitute verifiable proof? The citation in Wadd: The Life and Times of John C. Holmes was in an award-winning, thoroughly researched documentary. Seems to be a pretty decent source but I am new to Wikipedia.

Proper verification would be a reliable source that says "Falcon tends to lose consciousness before a full erection is obtained". John Holmes and his medical problems have nothing to do with this subject. We cannot extrapolate, based on relative size and height, about what issues we think the subject has. -Will Beback · † · 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I now get your point. Since I see that Jonah has posted here before, maybe he can weigh in on this subject as a definitive source. If he has not lost consciousness, of course.

From the (cough) horse's mouth: No, I don't lose consciousness, and Mr. Holmes lost consciousness due to the illicit substances in his body during filming. JAF1970 17:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commited suicide?

Oh my God! I commited suicide? When did this happen? JAF1970 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, according to User:Yungleek. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit. I promised I wouldn't commit suicide until AFTER my birthday. It screws up my birthday party on Sat. (Yes, I know Sat. is the 28th, but no one is free on Sunday, the bastards.) JAF1970 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with penis size information

The information in this article is used as criterion for inclusion in the list at Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis as well as Category:Men with unusually large penis. Now, more than 50 names have been included, and there have been objections raised strong enough that both the list and the category are currently targeted for deletion. Placing this posting uniformly on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I would firstly encourage editors to make sure reliable sourcing is provided to support the claims regarding penis size. Secondly, editors might wish to involve themselves in the discussions taking place at Talk:Human penis size and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 13:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some unsourced material. There is alot more that needs to be removed or tagged it seems. Anyways, --Tom 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I restored it, with sources. JAF1970 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to match the material to the source. Also, I removed the See also link because it is a redirect to another page, thanks! --Tom 13:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its time to nuke this article and start from scratch?? I removed more material that was cited to a blog. There is still alot of material to be sourced or removed it seems, anyways, --Tom 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was measured on camera and it's official. Do you need me to give you the publications that have confirmed it? JAF1970 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see the camera. And for anyone who claims that the amount of hits on Google he gets is a reliable indicator of his notoriety, look up any other random popular name followed by an animal. Example: Ronald Fox.

I've been measured by several sources. JAF1970 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberdude'02 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha the guy himself says that's his size and you are asking for pictures? Come on. At least have the courtesy to sign your suggestion 169.132.18.249 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for forgetting to sign it - it shows up at the bottom anyway. And I'm not asking for pictures, it's just that penis size is hardly an issue that people are frequently honest about. I'm just asking for some kind of actual proof other than a ridiculous Rolling Stones story and a bunch of complete copies of said story and wikipedia article.
Dude, the guy was in a documentary film called Private Dicks about large men. He appears IN THE NUDE. I don't know what other proof you want. It's known. You people are really getting out of hand. His appearances on Sirius alone are probably what causes his amount of google hits. Don't hate and act jealous 24.118.134.191 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been naked before as well. It doesn't mean I have a 20 foot penis. And he certainly does not appear to be anywhere close to 9 o' 5 soft in the Jensen thing. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a large penis, just that he has no real proof that it's 13.5. If everyone with a larger than average penis had their own article, there would be over 1.5 billion stories of this nature. And just to further assert my viewpoint, typing in his full name will only get ya 1,700 hits. Accounting for the junk that regularly appears and has nothing to do with the subject (I typed in Jonah Cardeli Eagle and Jonah Atelli Falcon to get an idea) that dwindles to 1,300 hits. Typing in my own full name, which has four portions, gets me well over 125,000. And I am certainly not famous.

P.S: The whole "whoever does not believe him is jealous" thing is getting old.Bomberdude'02 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite the topic. From what I've seen floating around on the web, pictures that allegedly depict Mr. Falcon's penis make it clear that he has a very well developed penis. However, I somewhat doubt that his penis is as large as he purports it to be. It doesn't appear to be as long as his forearm, and considering that he is (correct me if I'm wrong) 5'9", his forearm likely isn't longer than 10". In addition, the two pictures I've seen that allegedly depict Mr. Falcon's penis appear to have been painstakingly shot from such a perspective that the size of his limbs (thighs, forearms) are diminished in relation to his penis. His legs are clearly staggered in one photo, while his penis is angled toward the camera, casting the illusion that his penis is as long as his femur. In the other photograph that allegedly depicts his penis, though closer to the camera than his forearm, his penis appears to be shorter than his forearm. As I said before (unless he also has abnormally long forearms) his forearm probably isn't longer than 10 inches. In both pictures, his penis appears to be erect. It is certainly a large penis, but I doubt seriously that it is over 9 inches in length. Perhaps a medical record would better verify Mr. Falcon's assertions than an article of "Rolling Stone". - 75.148.9.113 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of original research and theory there. On the other hand Rolling Stone are a very reliable third party source. — R2 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must have is a very loose definition of "original research". I'm merely stating an observation. Perhaps if free images of Mr. Falcon's penis could be obtained they could be added to this article. Regardless, what is true is that Rolling Stone reported that Mr. Falcon's penis is 13.5 inches long. How well-founded that report is, however, is another issue. -75.148.9.113 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the suggestion that his forearm is around 10 inches long makes a lot of sense, at least to me, half a foot taller, with rather long arms, and having a forearm around 12 inches long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.100.243 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen!

Appeared on Jensen! on Tuesday under the 05-13-2008 show "De man met de langste penis ter wereld". JAF1970 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duvaj kurac majmune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.100 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin Yankees

I came here (curious about his appearance on yesterday's Sternshow) on a google cache.. I must admit I object to the truncation of the Talkin Yankees section. Yes we can do without the Yes flaming.. but there was much pertinent information that has since been removed. Many people would never know who this is outside of NYC if not for the Sirius Prank calls. (No offense to you JAF).169.132.18.249 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberdude'02 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it attempting to do so I'm being huggled as though I'm a vandal. Please do not do that Macy. Thanks. 24.118.134.191 (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X3FFDF

Just so you know, I'm a regular podcaster on the Xbox 360 Fanboy Fancast Defense Force with other Joystiq/Xbox 360 Fanboy writers. I'm sure it's noteworthy, but I can't post this sort of stuff on my own article. Up to you to decide whether to include or not. JAF1970 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is jonah jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.248.35 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's see. he has foreskin, blue eyes, the biggest cock and no employment. he's not jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvrwagon67 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What is with all the vandalism on the page, and the removal of sourced content? Are there people with issues about me? I'm pretty well documented, and I don't like people with personal insecurity trying to "deface" me. Enough is enough. JAF1970 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to the measurements.JAF1970 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism when it's getting rid of self-glorifying passages that are linked to websites that claim you have a big penis but once again do not contain any proof of such.
It's vandalism to delete sourced material. JAF1970 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, all of User:Bomberdude'02's mainspace edits thus far appear to have removed sourced content from articles. This seems to be good prima facie evidence in support of your assessment. I think you acted entirely appropriately in this matter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed his editing pattern, and I've also noticed that reliably sourced info is being removed, presumably, simply because it was posted by JAF1970. — Realist2 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The contention is not that the information is unsourced, but that is irrevelantly sourced. Linking to something that SAYS something without any discernible proof is not proper sourcing. Does telling Rolling Stones you have a big penis really make it a fact? NO! I'm disgusted with the way this is being protected as some sort of undeniable proof! And you may ALSO NOTE that MY content is being removed simply because it removes unproved claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.123.110 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone are reporting it as fact, not claim. That's all that matters to us. Take your campaign elsewhere. — Realist2 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... As long as you're famous, anything you say is true and all the admins will go nyah nyah nyah whenever you dispute it? And how exactly does Rolling Stones "report it" as fact?

The simple truth is that this is an interview, thus anything that is said, regardless of whether it is true or not, is a claim. Nothing I wrote in the article was destructive - it was all verifiably true. Jonah DOES claim that he has a big penis, and everyone can agree with that. Whether his penis is exactly 13 and a half inches is a completely different matter. And he DID appear in a program called the World's Biggest Penis. Nothing I said qualifies as vandalism. It's not like I said "Jonah Falcon is a fat lazy liar who really sucks and who everybody hates", I said something that was actually true and verifiable.

Taken from the Rolling Stone article - "Jonah Falcon's penis is 9.5 inches flaccid, 13.5 inches erect". They report it as a fact, not a claim made by Falcon. — Realist2 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think they got this information from? Certainly not JONAH! You're right though, while much of the article is recorded speech, this specific instance is not contained "between these". Lets do an example of stating a fact. Jonah Falcon may not have a 14 (13.5) inch penis. I just stated that as a fact, but does that mean that I did not say it? That it was not my viewpoint? It is not necessarily a claim made by me either. Perhaps I recruited a famous writer (Stephanie Meyer) to write it for me. Did the editor at Rolling Stones spend weeks observing the behavior of Jonah Falcon's penis? If not, we can assume that Jonah is the speaker, as he appears frequently throughout the article. If you would like a precedent for the way articles about a person's penis size are written, please look at the article on John C. Holmes. There, when somebody says, "John C. Holmes has a forty-foot penis", it is written as a point of view, not an absolute fact. The opposite is true as well; when people say that he does not have a forty-foot penis, this is written in an OPINION FORMAT. Truth is an opinion, whether everyone else believes you or not. It is the majority's belief that there are specific laws which govern the movement of particle in empty space and other mediums, but these are widely believed OPINION. An opinion can be entirely true or entirely false. Most Wikipedian articlae are governed by these laws, except for in instances where the opinion is so widely believed that it is merely taken as fact. Try the article on the Flat Earth Society. Does Wikipedia say, "the Flat Earth Society is bullshit"? No, they give a balanced opinion on a subject that very few believe in. Please take the time to keep this NPOV. I don't want to appear more rude than necessary, but it is disgraceful for a site that claims to be a freely editable encyclopedia to widely decry a single member's edits as "vandalism".

Also, against my better judgement, I must point out an error: the site claims that he is 5.9 inches soft and 73.3 inches hard near the bottom. He usually claims 9 o' 5 to 13-and-a-half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.123.110 (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... you got me there. With a 73 inch cock, he must indeed have difficulty getting in and out of rooms. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had penile reduction surgery. As for the rest - I've been measured by publications so much there's ruler ink on my cock. Enough already. JAF1970 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I DON'T CARE how many times you've said you've been measured; search the internet. The results are very unimpressive. And if this has happened so often, surely there is some kind of media recording where this can actually be accessed, and used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.123.110 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch your civility, if these comments get much more heated they will have to be removed. — Realist2 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I will no longer say anything that COULD POSSIBLY in any form or perspective be classified as rude. I am not asking for a picture of his penis. That would not prove anything. I want undeniable proof, as in a link to something that is frequently sourced to contain actual footage of his penis being measured. This source must provide undeniable proof that his penis is exactly 13.5 inches when erect. Until then, saying that he has undeniable proof is nothing short of trying to fool yourself. The link must contain a way to access the content freely, as per Wikipedia's specific guidelines, unless this subject has been so carefully studied by nameable eperts in the field that it cannot reliably be refuted.
Please remember to sign in, I don't fancy having a two way discussion with you and your IP. Your answer is no, WP:RS does not require anything of that nature. — Realist2 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can provideo it, however. At the frequently cited documentary, at roughly minute twenty-one, is a measurement. It is taken sitting down with a non-rigid measuring intrument, and includes a small amount that is arguably not penis. This measurement is taken in a non-erect but not necessarily fully flacid state. Either way, it comes out to slightly above 8 inches. The video can be accessed at this address, although I am unsure as to its safety and it contains many pictures of various humans of various states os nudity. It is the only site I could find that hosted it. http://www.spankwire.com/Documentary-The-World-s-Biggest-Penis/video62429. I have gone through great personal sacrifice to obtain this, as being functionally deaf and indisposed to looking at other people's penises, I had to spend forty minutes to find this. I don't blame you if you don't want to watch it, but for God's sake aty least take it into consideration. It is about the highest level of proof possible to get without deity-like powers. And just for the record, yes, there is a consensus clause in the reliability article. Bomberdude'02 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think a porn site is reliable on Wikipedia? I'm wasting my breath. — Realist2 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only site I could find that hosts the video. It's the content that matters, dude. While I share your concerns, you may have noticed that we're talking about penises here. Please view the John C. Holmes article for a NPOV case of penile sourcing. And just a word of advice: not everything you read in a magazine is true, Realist2. I am, from this point on, completely retiring this account from Wikipedia, so while you are still free to post WP RP as frequently as you wish, I will not be around to hear you. Bomberdude'02 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same "Rolling Stone" article that reports that Mr. Falcon's penis is "9.5 inches flaccid and 13.5 inches erect" also states very matter-of-factly that Mr. Falcon's penis was 8 inches long when he was 10 years old. How could they empirically obtain such information without medical records? It can only be assumed that this is an assertion of Mr. Falcon's, stated as fact in the article. How can such an article be cited as a reliable source?-75.148.9.113 (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on reliable sources to vet information. If the editors of RS feel comfrotable making that assertion, then we can report it. Given the overall assertion of the subject's anatomy, there's no reasons to doubt the specific assertion of when it began to grow.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's just that assertions aren't always factual and can be misleading. Rolling Stone never states that they measured Mr. Falcon's penis. No empirical evidence. It's really somewhat of a tabloid. Nevertheless the article doesn't explicitly state that his penis was measured by "Rolling Stone", so my point is somewhat irrelevant.-75.148.9.113 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone is a well-respected magazine. While it has had a couple of lapses over the years, it is generally considered reliable. We don't usually require that our sources discuss how they obtain information. If I read a book about a building which says it's 934 feet tall I don't necessarily expect that the author has measured it himself, but how he has obtained the information is not a great concern unless it's a contentious issue. While the assertion about this subject is extraordinary, it is repeated in more than one source so that is sufficient. Readers can check the citatoin to see where we obtain the information and ultimately make up their own minds about its accuracy.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomic

I am a regular character in a webcomic now (my character debuted on 1/28. Don't know if it's noteworthy enough, but... JAF1970 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked comic says the character is based on a video game. While the character is named "Jonah", and the face resembles Jonah Falcon's, is there any source that actually connects them?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - ask the author. JAF1970 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how we verify things for Wikipedia. The applicable policy is WP:V. If it were published somewhere that'd be fine.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New articles and radio app

I can't post these, since I'm the article subject, but:

JAF1970 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake

As a long-retired porn actress who is now in an entirely new profession, I still must make remarks here. I was in a limited edition with a male who chose not to continue to do porn as he did not want the world to know he had 14.5 inches. The reason I bring this up is that the difference between his flaccid length and his erect length was barely noticeable. There was only a slight increase in length and in thickness. I was with a number of large men and it was always the same story. There was very little difference between erect and flaccid length. Jonah Falcon claiming that he is 9.5 soft and 13.5 erect is impossible. If you ask medical doctors and sexologists, I am sure you will get documentation of this. I saw a photo of Jonas Falcon and his photo is obviously doctored, so I doubt that he is even 9.5 flaccid. I have seen them "doctor" photos of men I was with in magazines and they did a much better job than Jonas. Look closely and you will see. I have been a long-time fan and user of wikipedia. I am shocked that you would allow a man to self-proclaim that he has the largest penis and that he is known for his large penis. Many actors are large but they are not introduced as "known for his large penis." He doesn't do porn and his length is not documented by a medical doctor. Who put him on Wikipedia? Jonah Falcon. Who created most of the websites about Jonah Falcon? Jonah Falcon. Who created his photos? Jonah Falcon. No films. No doctor. And now he clains to not have sex aanymore so no one will be able to say he is not such a big deal. Wikipedia: this is a new low. Sheilab6977 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i agree delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No films? And only photos created by Jonah Falcon? That's definitely not true. You can see video of him nude in the documentaries mentioned in the article. These videos and others you can find online too, if you look. One documentary had all the interview subjects standing nude the entire time, as they were talking. As to large flaccid penises not growing in size, this seems quite an odd claim to make. Search for any porn actor known for having a large penis and then compare photos of them in a hard and flaccid state. You'll see that the difference usually isn't just that one is hard and one is soft with no perceptible change in size, as Sheila suggests... To the doubts of his size: Jonah's length is cited to a 'Rolling Stone' article and one assumes they did more than take his word for it. As with much in life though, there's room to doubt, sure.
The reason that it states in the opening that Falcon is "known for his large penis" is because that's all he's really known for. He's been the subject of some very notable coverage, the cited documentaries and articles, for this fact alone and so that's why the page introduces him with that line, that's plainly what he is known for. --Breshkovsky (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestooge

Should this article mention his job as senior editor of gamestooge? Also, he was recently on the Daily Show, and beyond that he's become something of a cultural phenomenon - people are going to search for him on wikipedia, we might as well have an article for them to find. All this unbridled deleting really rubs me the wrong way. 71.86.123.248 (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, GameStooge has been declared "spam" by the brains at Wikipedia because I (gasp) linked articles from the site a few times, chiefly Xbox Live Arcade games that were unannounced and my site was the first to break the news. JAF1970 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

Please don't use Cardeli as my middle name. I never use it. It's Jonah Adam Falcon. This is one of the few times I'll intercede on this article. JAF1970 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omission

I wrote many articles for Computer Games Magazine, UGO, and GamePen.

GamePen mentions:

JAF1970 (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Sex

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/04/tlcs-strange-sex-to-feature-most-endowed-man.html 24.215.166.162 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonah_Falcon&oldid=451324389"