Talk:Donna Perry (serial killer)

She?
Do we have to accept his claim that he is a woman now? He is clearly abusing the system. LazarWolf2021 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No trannies allowed 2600:1011:A121:D69B:ACEA:97D1:B8FC:F2C (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID, "". As individuals, we do not have to accept the claim, but the Wikipedia page has to reflect Perry's preference. The article does mention the prosecution's argument that Perry's gender identity was a way of avoiding criminal charges. It also mentions the criticisms from the family of Nickie Lowe. Both these things are an attempt to reflect the material found in reliable sources while providing a netural point of view (WP:NPOV). Hope that helps. Samsmachado (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize before hand
Ugly man, ugly woman. Should’ve just got castrated and both of his thumbs removed so he couldn’t kill anymore. 2600:8807:5842:9300:74E1:E187:A4C8:B0EC (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Former name
The current article lists the subject's former name. Under Manual of Style/Biography transgender people should only be identified by their former name if they were notable before their name change. Given she reportedly changed her name years before any sources discussing her were published, this seems to apply here. In particular,

"If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists."

Even if some sources state her former name, or completely omit her current name, it should not be listed in the article - at least not first and foremost. There is a source that claims she defended herself by blaming "Douglas", which might be a special case worth mentioning, though I still feel that information can be adequately conveyed by saying "Perry's defense rested on blaming her former male identity" or something to that effect.

@ Samsmachado I wanted to know if that at least partially satisfies your concerns about my recent edit.

ReynardiaVix (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The key word in that sentence policy is notable. (See WP:N.) Though Perry's crimes (the main thing she's 'notable for) were reported on after her transition, that does not automatically mean that she is not notable as Douglas Perry. Indeed, the crimes were committed pre-transition, a fact that is key to the court case and well-documented in sourcing. I would argue that, then, the main thing Perry is notable for (killing people) is precisely notable under the name Douglas Perry.


 * I would add that precisely because many of the sources cover the defence's differentiation between Douglas and Donna, that it is key for reader comprehension to include both names. I would welcome any opinions from other editors, but the way I see it, both names are necessary and warranted under current policy. Samsmachado (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He 76.0.16.153 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)