What image should we use for this page? My suggestions are below.
- Image:Donato Giancola - Boromir.jpg
- Image:Matt Stewart - Eowyn and Faramir.jpg
- Image:Donato Giancola - Faramir at Osgiliath.jpg
- Image:Anke Eissmann - The Black Serpent founders.jpg
I personally favor #2. --Narfil Palùrfalas 15:09, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- Hm, good question. I think the primary image should have one of two features, either an ordinary unnamed character, or a group of men. This rules out the first two and the fourth is a bit too cluttered and hard to make out any of the men, so my vote out of those would be for the third. However I'll do some more research and maybe we can find something better. We almost need an artist to create an illustration of multiple men from Numenoreans, Rangers, Woses, etc. to fully portray the various types of men. --Hyarion 15:21, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, I chose the image I did precisely because it shows several Men from multiple (and quite different) ethnic groups—the Rohirrim and Wild Men. The picture for a race infobox is supposed to be a brief representation of all the members of that race, so I wanted an image that had many people in it, preferably showing the diversity of that race (and for Men, that diversity is great indeed). I looked through most or all of the images of Men currently on the wiki, and that was the one I considered best in this regard(I also considered "The Black Serpent Founders", but like Hyarion decided that it was too cluttered and confused to serve as an infobox image). It is important to remember that just because the Edain, Númenóreans, and Rohirrim are the best represented in Tolkien's works does not mean they made up most of the Men who have lived. Easterlings and others play an important part in Middle-earth's history, and just because they are often seen as "other" by the main characters internal to the story does not mean they should be left out of consideration. Thus I put up that image with the explicit intention of including as many races in one photo as possible. Thus I reject "Boromir, "Eowyn and Faramir", and "Faramir at Osgiliath" as being too restrictive in scope.
- For what it's worth, the old image was a picture of the Bëorian badge and was also put there by me, but I now consider it insufficient. —Tar-Telperien 17:34, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- I forgot to take into account the current primary image, which in my opinion does a great job at depicting the diversity of Men, as Tar-Telperien states. At the moment I think it is our best option. --Hyarion 17:43, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
- Looks pretty good the way it is. --Theoden1 13:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Why does this say that hobbits are a race of men? I don't remember reading that in any book.
- See for example the Prologue to the LotR, part 1: Concerning Hobbits: It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. .... But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. ~ Earendilyon 15:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for the reference. It doesn't seem accurate with the rest of the legendarium though, especially that dwarves are closer to men than elves. Wouldn't elves be closer because they are both the children of Iluvatar? Also, in TT Fangorn adds another line to the old lists for "hobbits, the hole dwellers." I don't think that it should be said that they are simply a race of men.' —Unsigned comment by Ælfwine (talk • contribs).
- There is some debate as to whether Hobbits are "Homo Floresiensis" (by lack of better word) or "Homo Sapiens Floresiensis". There is supposed to be a reference to the evolution/change of Hobbits in Myths Transformed (Morgoth's Ring), but I couldn't find it on a quick search. Treebeard, on advice of Merry and Pippin, called them one of the Children, but neither of them knew anything about Linnaean taxonomy, cladistics or evolution. Maybe The Peoples of Middle-earth has more on the subject. -- Ederchil 06:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Of course, the matter whether or not Hobbits are Men has been discussed before. I found, for example, a discussion on this matter at MinasTirith.com. From that discussion I also got this quote: "The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not elves or Dwarves) -- ..." (Source: Letter 131.) ~ Earendilyon 07:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
 Notable men
Is this section really appropriate? I think every single human character in the legendarium is notable by definition. --Aule the Smith 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll agree with you on the first part. But every single human in the legendarium notable? I daresay more people would know Aragorn II than Iorlas... -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Insane it is not. It is well documented that the average height of the Dúnedain of the TA was 6'4'' (= man-high, see ranga) and that they were shorter than the Númenóreans of the SA (Elendil the Tall was almost 2,5 rangar tall, ca. 240 cm), but I do not know any precise source for the figure 7'0''. --Tik 15:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- "Hobbits on the other hand were in nearly all respects normal Men, but of very short stature. They were called 'halflings'; but this refers to the normal height of men of Númenórean descent and of the Eldar (especially those of Ñoldorin descent), which appears to have been about seven of our feet." - Of Dwarves and Men, p. 310 --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)