Wikipedia:Ethnicity is important

Basically, people are people, and what human beings care about primarily is other people. All the higher primates, actually: almost all spend most of the day interacting with each other. This is the main human concern, and always will be. Any thinking organism would care. It's what we do with our brains, mostly.

In particular, ethnicity is actually important. People write books about this, and consider the classification important. Are we truly committed to the ideal that all people have indistinguishable backgrounds, or at least so indistinguishable that nobody will care about finding ones with some particular background? Do we think human affairs so mechanical that background does not matter?

In further particular, with artists of all kinds: Almost all (where the articles are sufficiently expanded) are people for who there is sourced discussion about how the background affected them--for nobody would write extensively about them without discussing it, nor do they mostly avoid discussing it themselves when speaking about their work. Even with others: Nationality, ethnicity,religion, place of birth and education, schools attended—all are important in people's background. All are appropriate categories.

There are irrelevant categories: for most professions, physical appearance is not important. But for some it will be: performers, models, even politicians. Usually this will be inappropriate categories, but not always. Politics also: almost any characteristic is related to what politicians do and how they get elected.

With respect to the guidelines, proper interpretation is necessary:

1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage

...should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.

This is to be interpreted with the understanding that in almost all cases involving human beings, heritage willl be a distinctive and notable topic in its own right.

2. WP: Biographies of living persons#CategoriesWikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)

1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
   
2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

As the full source says,This only applies to religious beliefs and sexual orientations. Even with respect to religion, under the general rationale for BLP (Do No Harm), religion iwill be necessary to be avoided only where some harm is possible--by now, this is in a minority of cultures. . Sexual orientation does more generally apply, the world being the way it is--it can be assumed there is a high possibility is most cultures that damage might be done if undisclosed sexuality is discussed. The second part is necessary to avoid tabloid gossip.

3. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Overcategorization states

1. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created;
   
2. Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

Though it has been concluded from this in a personal essay that " a mishmash of ethnicity with any occupation or ability category is not inherently notable.", this is only technically true. It may not be inherently notable, but it usually will be.

In conclusion, If ethnicity is notable and suited for a category, which even those who disagree with the by occupation categories accept, [1], how do we deal with the fact that the categories are too large to be useful unless subdivided? Occupation is the most reasonable way, because people of a particular sort of notability are what users are generally looking for. Approximate date is another, and should be used also.

See also

• WP:Ethnicity is not notable, the essay to which this one was written to reply.