Talk:Trijntje Keever

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

FALSE[edit]

If she's really 254 cm then why she is not listed as the tallest woman ever? Currently, tallest woman is listed as 248 cm and her name is Zeng Jinlian, therefore, Trijntje Keever being 254 is probably false and unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.166.208 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Someone please clean out this page!

foot[edit]

Remember that in the past in The Netherlands every region had his own "foot" for measuring. Therefore the length of 9 feet 4 inches could be less that in our days. The Amsterdam foot was only 28 centimetres, not 30,5, so the difference for 9 feet would be 18 cm or 7 inches. --DrJos (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes: The measurement of '9 Amsterdam feet' is - I suggest - a rounded figure. Probably she was nearer '9' than '8' Amsterdam feet, so (using Dr Jos's 28 cm - with thanks) she probably measured over 240 cm.

It is interesting that - in nearly four hundred years since her death - we have had no female, with untwisted spine, within about 20 cm of her claimed height. I suggest that the actual height of this female person was not recorded with the same care and accuracy and verifiability as extreme heights are today (if agents allow their charges to be examined carefully by experts}. So, it may be inaccurate, rounded - or even exaggerated. Maybe. Autochthony wrote 1745z 13th September 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.170.85 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest "woman"[edit]

At 17 she was not a woman, but a girl (under 18 years of age). It's POV to call her a woman, but would be NPOV to call her a girl (as that is what she is in the eyes of most). 86.164.80.103 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of POV is calling her a woman. Should she be called "probably the tallest female person"? Had she lived 9 months longer, this "problem" wouldn't occur. --DrJos (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was the tallest recorded female person. I have corrected the article accordingly. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes.

So Ginny Bunford is still - or 'is again' - the Tallest Woman ever, as Keever and Zeng were both girls.

Let's hear it for the Brit!

Autochthony wrote - with tongue in cheek - 1915z 13 September 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.170.85 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1633 Netherlands, wouldn't a 17-year-old female have been considered a woman? Chuck Coker (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

The article starts out "Trijntje Cornelisdochter Keever (April 10 or 16, 1616 – July 22, 1633), ..."

Paragraph 4 has this sentence, "She was buried on July 7, 1633 in Edam, ..."

This would seem to indicate that she was buried 15 days before she died. Chuck Coker (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buried before death?[edit]

How could Trijntje be buried in 7 July 1633, if the page incipit shows that she died fifteen days later? (22 July 1633). --Adalingio (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've just seen that before me, another user noticed this incongruence. :-) --Adalingio (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a typo. I've changed the date of her death to the 2nd of July, which is the date several Dutch sources give (source 1 ; source 2). --Prinz von Ölen (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]