On May 20, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
"John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960) is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree."
Out of curiosity, why do you think nationality ("American") is relevant, but not race, place of birth etc?
Well, it's a prima facie indication of where the person's gallivanting around took place. "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is an American basketball player" tells us, okay, he's in the US, which is big on basketball, if he was a Canadian basketball player, that would be a little different, even if he did play in America. ("Stephen John Nash (born February 7, 1974 in Johannesburg, South Africa) is a Canadian All-Star National Basketball Association player for the Phoenix Suns." makes it clear that he did play in America.)
Always cite nationality in the first sentence; if the person had a significant-place-of-gallivanting-around other than their home country, cite that place-of-gallivanting-around in the first sentence as well. "Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, CB, DSO, Legion of Honour (August 16, 1888 – May 19, 1935), professionally known as T.E. Lawrence and, later, T.E. Shaw, but most famously known as Lawrence of Arabia, gained international renown for his role as a British liaison officer during the Arab Revolt of 1916 to 1918. " establishes he's British, but he did a lot of gallivanting-around in Arabia.
Can we formalise some guidelines? When is race relevant? Presumably if someone is the victim of a race hate crime...but when else? I don't think in an encyclopaedia we can ever refrain from mentioning something like that, but we can take "not relevant" to mean "not in the lead".
"Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972), became the first African American Major League Baseball player of the modern era in 1947." is a good example of citing race where relevant.