Talk:2022 Australian Open – Men's singles

Djokovic
There are 11 days till the tournament starts. Djokovic is appealing the visa cancellation. Until such time as Tennis Australia officially declares Djokovic is out of the tournament, we should not remove him from the draw/seeds section. 193.115.117.170 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Djokovic is not officially out of the tournament, so why does it say Kecmanovic is through to the 2nd round with a walkover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Opening section
Why does the whole opening section talk about novak? Mustn't the whole point of the article is to give information about the SINGLES, right? 79.179.202.219 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Djokovic visa saga - which may have more to play out yet - has completely overshadowed not only this tournament, but the entire Australian tennis season, dominating international headlines like few events in tennis history. It is standard for the defending champion's results to be the first sentence/paragraph of tournament event articles. 2 + 2 = 4. 193.115.117.170 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, once the tournament is complete, the defending champion is mentioned further down unless he happened to be a finalist again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The tournament isn't complete, so your point is irrelevant. 123.243.127.71 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As Djokovic made headlines around the world following he cancelled his visa for the second time, he will withdraw from the tournament unless Andrey Rublev takes his spot, Gaël Monfils takes Rublev's former spot and Alexander Bublik takes Monfils' former spot that he will be seeded 33rd before the order of play would be made. Unless if the order of play has been released, Bublik will never be seeded and a lucky loser will take Djokovic's place. The contenders are to be drawn in order: Salvatore Caruso, Damir Džumhur, Roman Safiullin or Elias Ymer. ApprenticeWiki  work  04:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what will happen if Djokovic is out of the tournament, but it's not confirmed yet pending tomorrow's court hearing. We should not make any changes to the draw until Tennis Australia officially announces what will take place. 123.243.127.71 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Djokovic has been disqualified and kicked out of Australia, likely banned from returning until 2026. The article should directly mention it as a disqualification. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:7CFF:4BB5:524C:C694 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Djokovic points dropped
As Novak Djokovic's points from 2020 will be dropped on 31 January 2022. The points will be equal in 2021, 2000-2000=0 is unlikely by 21 February 2022. ApprenticeWiki work  13:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Novak points drop rule is inconsistent with other players. Dominic Thiem (for example) is dropping 2020 points and replacing them with 2021 (for three more weeks).

Why is this not the case for Novak? If you apply this rule equally, Novak will finish 31 January with 11,015 and only drop to 9,015 on 21 February 2022. ??? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we please get rid of the No. 1 ranking line at the top - it's not true and it's directly conflicting with the information in the article. Djokovic will retain the No. 1 ranking no matter what until 21 February 2022. EditorSeto (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is true, just delayed. I changed the sentence structure to be more accurate of the situation. If they win they will be No. 1, just not instantly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022
Change:

Novak Djokovic was the three-time defending champion, but was unable to compete after his visa was cancelled shortly before the tournament began, due to failure to meet Australia's COVID-19 vaccination requirements for visitors.

to:

Novak Djokovic was the three-time defending champion, but was prevented from competing after Australian immigration minister Alex Hawke cancelled his visa shortly before the tournament began, citing supposed risks to public health and the good order of Australian society.

The re-cancellation of his visa had nothing to do with the vaccination requirements, but rather that the minister in his decision considered that Djokovic's presence in Australia "may foster anti-vaccination sentiment" (p. 17). The minister explicitly states that he is willing to assume that Djokovic "has a medical reason for not being vaccinated" (p. 15) and that he "entered Australia consistently with ATAGI documents" (p. 16) and "poses a negligible individual risk of transmitting COVID-19 to other persons" (p. 16). As such, the current sentence is false and misleading. The "supposed" in my suggested change is critical as the minister provided no proof that Djokovic did pose a risk; he just had to be personally satisfied that Djokovic "is or may be, or would or might be" a risk. The second court ruling only found that the decision was not illegal, not that the decision was reasonable or had any merit. In fact, such decisions cannot be challenged on their merits; such is the "god-like" power given to the minister under Australian law. 193.115.92.245 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This was indeed the reasoning behind the last cancellation. Hawke abandons the idea that his COVID vaccination exemption was invalid entirely, and cites risks to public health and good order to re-cancel his visa. Rubyaxles (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * However the change requested is written with, and the reasoning written with, bias. "god-like"??? common. The new sentence as written is pretty bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "god-like" seems to be taken directly from the Australian government website article the IP user linked: "As noted by academic Mary Crock ‘the Act gives the minister “god-like powers” to cancel visas and if “they really decide to … the power is there”’". Every part of the IP user's reasoning is directly sourced, so I see no bias. The sentence in the article now is fine, but the IP user's original suggestion would have worked just as well. Letcord (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)