Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Why the removal of long undisputed content?

Why was tha part talking about where Djokovic’s Father and Mother from removed completely from the article? Where was this agreed upon? I agree with WEBDuB as describing the mother as “Croatian” as to avoid ethnic Croat concerns. However Deletion of it all completely and hiding nationality seems not best intentions. OyMosby (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So after 2 months of discussions and RfC-s we are back as it was earlier. Not that I have something against it since I know the subject well but it was all unnecessary. -Theonewithreason (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thing is the removal of the content was not one of the two RfC options of either keeping as is or proposed addition. Just someone taking it upon themselves to change it. Defeats the purpose of an RfC. OyMosby (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: My RfC has nothing to do with your edit, my RfC is based on two sources which do not concern your source and your edit. So you have my support in this edit. My RfC is for the reason to see which sources we my use in this article. We probably won’t use my two suggested sources and that’s it we go on to new sources. Mikola22 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the edit either but after the two sources in the RfC were opposed, we are only left with the Bowers source for Novak's mother's ethnicity. Bowers' book was deemed unreliable by some editors at RSN (I think it is OK) and in the section on Novak's mother above, Mikola22 stated that it could not be used in the article for that reason. I think that Fyunck(click)'s larger point was that given the uncertainty regarding the ethnic origin of both of Novak's parents and to avoid the constant edit-warring, it's best to just leave that part out of the article at least until there are better sources, which seems sensible to me. --Griboski (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an opinion that Bowers' book is a very quality source, for me it is also one of the highest quality sources. Situation with this source is not clear yet. Mikola22 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Right but my edit restores the original version of the article noting the mother as Croatian not Croat which is ethnicity so shouldn’t be an issue. The RfC was over ethnicity not nationality of the parents. Before all this started she was referred as Croatian nationality. Fyunk had stated that famous persons bios don’t mention parents and their origins but most do. Not sure why Djokovic would be different. I think this edit solves the issue by leaving out ethnicity. Another user called this fringe however I see no sources stating the mother as a Serb yet more (although weak) sources state her as Croat. Again these are weak sources so that is why sticking with nationality origin makes more sense. In fact it’s hownit was presented in the article for a while. Balkan drama will never end. Even if one deletes half the article it will continue. OyMosby (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I never said most famous bios don't mention parents. Rafael Nadal's article mentions his parents too... so does Serena Williams. They don't mention where their parents were born or their ethnicity, as those items are pretty trivial to the tennis player's bio. Considered one of our very best articles since it was a featured article, Milos Raonic mentions his own ethnicity and his parents names... that's it. No birth places of parents, no parents ethnic background. Djokovic's article for some reason does say where his parents were born. That's pretty trivial right there. His parents ethnicity if even more trivial (and appears to be a bit controversial as well). There is no need to have it in there imho. Perhaps one day someone will submit this article for a higher level of quality (it failed even attaining good status last go around). The reviewers will likely chop that trivial stuff out quickly with their recommendations before it can move on to be judged. Plus the article can't have any controversies with frequent edit changes hanging over its head. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant mention of parents and their backgrounds. I’ve seen numerous famous peoples’ bios have mention of parents and where they aren from. Grandparents even. For example Clint Dempsey Mentions Irish on father’s side. I think the current version of the personal background is pretty risk free. I think both “sides” seems to agree as two who apposed the RfC see the return edit as fine. OyMosby (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Per your second edit. There seems to be a back and forth about the vaccine fiasco? I believe Djokovic was not for the Covid vaccine but I don’t think he is anti vaccine all around. It’s another contentious topic as of late. Not sure what happens with it. OyMosby (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

He was not specific about which vaccines he is against. And that is a strange entry to be sure on Clint Dempsey. And no mention of his parents names or where they were born. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brady article goes in even more detail. Larry Bird and Jake Gyllenhaal are ones of many more examples. I don’t think an article will fail verification for including such information. OyMosby (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

To me, mentioning her national descent by linking to Croatian nationality in the absence of Croatian ethnic origin, is pretty trivial. She was born in Belgrade which makes her a Serbian national by default regardless of ethnicity. If we could establish that she is ethnically a Croat that would be notable but apparently we don't have reliable sources for it. --Griboski (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You had stated you were fine with the edit, I thought? OyMosby (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I originally thought it was about ethnicity but mentioning Croatian national descent doesn't add much value as it is also technically possible she could belong to any number of ethnic minorities. --Griboski (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I left it as Croatian. WebDuB piped it to the Croatia page as before itnwas linked to Croats. So as to not specify any specific ethnicity. I find it so odd how RS is plentiful on the father’s ethnic background but scarce for the mother’s. So weird. Hard to find. The book simply mentions her as Croatian (No idea if that is ethnicity that he is mentioning, or if se has Croatian citizenship). Not sure if there are other books on Novak Djokovic. For one of the most famous and talented players in the world I’m surprised. I mean months prior to the whole RfC the Croatian nationality was mentioned without much trouble. I don’t see why remove it. I don’t know. It seemed simple at first. I don’t really know anymore what is the right option......OyMosby (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That is because his mother is a private person, she is not so exposed like his father is who gives interviews, gives opinions on instagrams and is on TV shows way more often than Dijana. That is why sources are scarce about her. -Theonewithreason (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps but as you said the father gives interviews as just Novak Djokovic so seems odd it never came up. Though there are news articles claiming so but are unfortunately not RS. OyMosby (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I gave you examples as you asked. Why remove sourced content again? No one else seems to be removing it. There was an RfC for a different edit, not to get rid of the original version of the article... Why remove a long standing part of the article? I see no reason that that sentence specifically will get in the way of a review process as numerous other articles that have passed had such content in the early life section. Is is beyong strange reasoning. OyMosby (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I left it but shortened it. Since it has two sources readers can check out those sources for more info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

In the sidebar summary, section "Team competitions", please make this change to make it current:

Before: Team competitions Davis Cup W (2010) Hopman Cup F (2008, 2013)

After: Team competitions ATP Cup W (2020) Davis Cup W (2010) Hopman Cup F (2008, 2013)

Link to ATP Cup 2020

Looking at the source code, the team section should look something like this: Team = yes DavisCupresult = W (2010) HopmanCupresult = F (2008, 2013) ATPCupresult = W (2020)

Not sure how to easily add ATPCupresult to be part of this coding, but am willing to do research if this is to be accepted.

Filipradenovic (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, after this:

He is the only male player to have won all nine of the Masters 1000 tournaments.See here and see here

Add a following sentence:

In 2020, he has claimed them all twice. Filipradenovic (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also change 34 masters titles to 35. He won to day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I see the changes for Masters, but not for Team competitions section. Will ATP Cup be added in the sidebar? Filipradenovic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because ATP cup is not in infobox all other players. ATP cup is only once played. Cheers.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a rule on when it should be added in the infobox? This is a tournament that is a standard part part of ATP tour calendar, and will be played in 2021, likely following years as well. In fact, it could be claimed that this was one of the most serious team tournaments in tennis (Olympics are played as single, not part of team). Can you point to me where I can make a request for this tournament to be added in tennis player infobox as a standard feature? Thank you for your help and info. Filipradenovic (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. --Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

More edits needed

The all time tournament records chart should be updated to show that he has 35 Masters 1000 titles. This is first all time, tied with Nadal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Over 287 weeks as number 1

That´s incorrect, ATP publishes its ranking weekly, more recently on Monday sept 21st, Total weeks as number 1 for Djokovic 287, period, not over 287. Each week adds one week as number one, but not in advance. See this link. Mijcofr (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness... the grandparents info again? We just went through this about Excessive detail

We just went through an RfC where it was overwhelmingly opposed to adding birth info on Djokovic's mother. Then we went through it again. Now an editor is adding birth info on Djokovic's grandparents. That is ridiculously trivial for Wikipedia! Can we get some help in removing this garbage from the article? It's bordering on disruptive after the last discussions and I can't do it all myself. It's been tagged as such. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Images in tennis career part

It seems there are few images in tennis career part. We can only see limited images, and there are not pictures in the seasons of 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019. Most of them are important to Novak Djokovic, I don't know why someone removed the pictures.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's an extremely unusual article, 10 photos in prose is about the limit... otherwise it gets cluttered with pics. Try to find high quality photos one of which shows a serve, one for a forehand, one backhand, one at the net, and maybe one trophy. Maybe a couple others. This article already has eleven (as does Roger Federer's article). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal

Novak Djokovic#Tennis career history → Novak Djokovic tennis career history as per WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:FORK. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This could certainly be shortened by a bunch (as many tennis articles could). But the seasonal articles and career statistic article covers everything we need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Fyunck(click) I'm not a fan of shortening sections, because having comprehensive detail is not a bad thing. I see little harm in creating a fork, I thought the objections would be more so to do with naming or how the fork should look. At the moment the article is just way too long though, does not make for a good scrolling experience. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of harm. It's harder for readers to find forks and forks get missed by editors updating. The yearly sections should be shortened because there already are forks of comprehensive detail in his yearly articles. Tennis bios have standardized Tennis project forks. They usually start with just the bio. If the bio gets too large we split it to form a career statistics article as we did with Novak Djokovic career statistics. If a player wins a Grand Slam tournament they get a yearly article to cover that year in detail, as we did with 2019 Novak Djokovic tennis season. If a player has a huge rivalry, enough to warrant its own article, we do that... as we did with Djokovic–Nadal rivalry. Djokovic even has a List of career achievements by Novak Djokovic article which imho is ridiculous. The problem is when those items fork off, the main article sections should shrink considerably to only the biggest highlights, and Djokovic's haven't. Even his coaching section is ridiculously large... I could cut it by 3/4. With what we already have, creating another "Novak Djokovic tennis career history" is a huge no. His career statistics page is more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Fyunck. The article is more overly-detailed than it is comprehensive. A lot of it could be condensed, and not just the yearly summaries. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Vaxxer

I understand the sources refer to him as an anti-vaxxer and it's not that they're not reputable sources, but I don't think he's necessarily an anti-vaxxer just because he's against having the covid19 vaccination and being opposed to needing it to travel for tennis. An anti-vaxxer is someone who opposes all vaccinations and I do think a distinction should be made in circumstances where someone only expresses opposition to the Covid19 vaccine. For example I've been vaccinated with basically every vaccine I could have as a child, will fully support my children receiving them in the same manner, but I'm still hesitant to take the Covid19 vaccine as a healthy person in a low/no-risk age group. I don't think that makes me an anti-vaxxer and Djokovic shouldn't directly draw that label unless there's evidence to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2C4A:6100:65C4:D4ED:4CEF:CB24 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous trivia in section "Support of sport and sportspeople"

It's one thing to simply list some sports teams Djokovic likes, but it's quite another to start quoting how much he likes them. This section is way too trivial for an encyclopedia. Another item is it's sentence after sentence instead of one or two paragraphs. That makes it look amateurish. I don't know if any of this is noteworthy but it certainly isn't the way it is now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

His favorite football clubs are listed as well. That was never remived. Most of the new content is about the relations between him and Modric and how sports transcends race or nationality despite backlsh he got for his positive attitude. I had removed a lot of the quotes as I mentioned before. I don’t think Serena’s shoe size is the same as Djokovic bringing ethnic respect and unity in a heated region and getting flack for it. The section is about sportsmanship and sports conduct. Again I considerably trimmed down what rhe user added. But to remove it all? The section is small to begin with, surely it’s not an issue? It is mentioned once that he supported Croatia’s team in the World Cup. Not sure if you saw my latest version. Please let me know how we can further improve it together. Cheers OyMosby (talk)

But you'll note his favorite football clubs are listed... but not how much he gushes over them or quotes about how much he like a specific player. How sports transcends race is not the scope of this article. And sentences looks like a list article rather than encyclopedic prose. That could all be in one or two paragraphs.

Djokovic is a fan of Serbian football club Red Star Belgrade, Italian club A.C. Milan and Portuguese club S.L. Benfica. He has also shown public support for Croatia at the FIFA World Cup and when faced with criticism from some within his native country of Serbia, Djokovic replied that "Sports have their 'universal language,' they erase boundaries between people, overcome differences in religion, race and nationality." Djokovic has expressed admiration for Croatian soccer player Luka Modrić, who plays for the Real Madrid club. He is good friends with fellow Serbian tennis player Ana Ivanovic, whom he has known since the two were children growing up in Serbia.

Djokovic is a member of the "Champions for Peace" club, a group of famous elite athletes committed to serving peace in the world through sport. It was created by Peace and Sport, a Monaco-based international organization.[463]

That is how I would phrase the section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I see you already updated. Much appreciated for taking the time @Fyunck(click): Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not update the section. Since you approve I will. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)←←

Oh sorry, made an assumption. Well still much appreciated for taking time to fix it! Stay wellOyMosby (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

"the group of three players who have dominated men's tennis since 2016." - this is incorrect. They dominated since 2005. not 2016. Or 2007. if we should wait until Djokovic joins them as no 1, 2 and 3 of the world Milos2021 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not doneThe Big Three is a 2016 onward item. The Big Four would have been through 2016. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I found this article that discusses the "Big Three" though it is unclear the exact time frame. Consider reading this article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Atp cup

Can someone please add his ATP Cup title with Serbia in 2020 as part of his team events record. Thanks Thegoat6969123 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry i meant ‘team competitions’ record, where it says hopman cup and davis cup please add atp cup W (2020) Thegoat6969123 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Considered a minor event, like 250 level. Not every tournament is included in infoboxes. However his full ATP Cup participation is here in his stats. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

2021: should be changed to 20th Grand Slam title to reflect on Djokovic equalling Federer and Nadal 2A02:C7F:D2B8:9D00:1174:658E:2877:4496 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Also, Djokovic was runner-up ten times (10) in the Grand Slam events while Federer and Nadal were each runner-up eight times, demonstrating the acuteness of their respective fighting spirits. 216.174.71.189 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Novak djokovic

He won 84 tittles not 83 Huzaifa Hanif (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

2021 french open 2A02:C7E:1088:CF00:6410:2346:26D:6002 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

He never won the mens single olympic gold stated in the top 2A00:801:2D0:8B14:D9FE:BED1:6D29:8ED2 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the modern ATP Tour – which consists of the four Grand Slam tournaments, all nine ATP Masters events, the ATP Finals, and the Olympic singles gold medal. It's discussing the modern ATP Tour. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympic singles gold medal

He has won an all-time record 61 "Big Titles" on the modern ATP Tour – which consists of the four Grand Slam tournaments, all nine ATP Masters events, the ATP Finals, and the Olympic singles gold medal. A lot of things are written incorrectly here, especially that he won the "Olympic singles gold medal" which it never is . The source is placed, and nothing is written in it about what is written in this sentence on Wikipedia. He won a bronze medal in 2008 at the Olympic Games, not a gold one.93.136.63.71 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that you do not understand the sentence. It says that he won 61 "big titles", and then it explains what "big titles" are. It does not say he won Olympic gold medal. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

Add the ATP Cup tournament, and Djokovic’s, as part of Team Serbia, championship won at the ATP Cup in 2020 to the Team Tournaments section on his page as a third tournament along. 124.149.62.176 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 11:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Notations to Grand Slam Performance Timeline

Note A discusses walkovers that were not counted as wins but note B focuses on the tournament disqualification, loss of prize money and ranking points; it does not state whether the match was recorded as a loss nor whether the earlier matches (R1, if played,-3) are still counted as wins. Antipodenz (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Career Golden Masters

The introductory section qualifies Djocovic's double career Grand Slam (note: impressive) as being an an achievement for the only time in the Open Era and then goes on to record his career Golden Masters but without qualification as to the period in which this could be accomplished. It is not reasonable to consider that people should either know this or search the link (which doesn't actually advise this other than by interpretation from the table). Recommend after "as well as the only player" add '(since the establishment of the Masters Series in 1990)'. Antipodenz (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. ForzaUV (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Career Record

Why aren't Olympic Games mentioned as part of the career record? Antipodenz (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. ForzaUV (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Record Accomplished - since (year)

Years advised appear to have a default to the commencement of The Championship (Wimbeldon) in 1877 but that year does not create the first year in which any particular record could be obtained. In particular the first potential year (for all practical purposes) that a non- calendar career Grand Slam could have been achieved was 1925 (with a minimum of one Major being won the previous year and the French Open being won for the first year it has been available to non-members of French Clubs); likewise the first year that the double career Grand Slam could have been won was therefore 1926. The combination of all four titles on all three different surfaces could have only occurred after changes made to court surface (hard courts) in the Open Era for US and AO so the earliest year for that occurring should be recorded (1978). The double career Grand Slam on all three different surfaces should reflect the year following (1979). It is pleasing to see this approach reflected in the "12 hardcourt Major titles" with a since of "1977" being an attempt to get this right but the actual initial date for hard courts at the US Open was 1978. The "longest final in history at theee majors" has a 'since' of 1877 but the link provided records that the match referred to qualifies these as the longest finals in the 'Open Era' - unless evidence can be provided to justify the all time claim then the date should be adjusted to 1968. Antipodenz (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ITF World Ranking record

The ITF record is included as part of the ATP rankings record set but it is not correct or appropriate to include this record within this set (probably should be its own as "ITF records, or similar). Antipodenz (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed the section to simply, rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Grand Slam matches record

Djokovic is the only male player to have won 27 Grand Slam singles matches in a single year, which he has achieved twice in 2015 and again in 2021. Steffi Graf is the only woman or other player to have achieved this. Graf could claim 28, but she did not contest the 1988 US Open semi final, being given a walkover against Chris Evert. Regardless of Graf, Djokovic stands alone in male players. He and Roger Federer also share the records for being the only male players to contest all 28 Grand Slam singles matches in a single year. I think this is a noteworthy record for his wiki page. 76.160.6.50 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Federer too had 27 Grand Slam singles wins in 2007 (French Open final, won the other three). However, Djokovic had 27 consecutive such wins. But I think the article already says that he fell short by just 1 match of the Grand Slam, at the very end. That is the same as saying 27 consecutive wins. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

All time tournament records

There is a general lack of clarity as to whether these entries are actually all-time or all-time (mens) records. Three times the record accomplished entry includes 'mens' but other records not so qualified are held by women. There could be an all time section followed by an all time (men) section or this section be carefully reviewed and annotated as a male record as appropriate. Antipodenz (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost always records are gender specific and discipline specific. No matter where you read it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The two tours are separate; men and women do not play against each other, just as the boy's tournaments are again separate. The rules also differ, for instance, the five-set versus three-set grand slam rules. A combined record isn't that logical. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the lead

The "Legacy" section says that "Djokovic is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player of all time." If there is consensus on that, the lead should definitely include it; that is an obviously significant statement. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a true statement and subjective things are not put in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't true, then it shouldn't be in the legacy section either. Oh, yes, we have plenty of subjective statements in the lede. See, for instance, the Federer article and its reference to the Big Three as "widely considered to be the greatest three players of all time." That is a good article. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We have come full circle on this one. If it belongs in the legacy section, it belongs in the lead as well. As to whether it belongs in the legacy section, I would wait till he hit 21. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Widely considered as the greatest player of all time

Wouldn't it be better to write it as "one of the greatest players". That's how I usually see it in articles about similar icons in their field and it's less definitive since there's never really such consensus? Lakituskip (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone sneaked that in and it has been changed back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion of that revert. I don't agree with the reason mentioned above either. Articles about similar icons do have the "greatest" right in the lead: see Pele (good article), Wayne Gretzky (featured article), Tom Brady, Muhammad Ali, . . . 99.13.228.225 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

According to the lead of the article, the name should be “pronounced [nôʋaːk dʑôːkoʋitɕ] ”. Now that is a contradiction in itself: The text marks two vowels with the diacritic for falling pitch. But, at least to my ears, the speaker pronounces the first name with a rising pitch. Which is correct? ◅ Sebastian 12:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Funny, how ambiguous quotes can be: Of course the name should not be anything like “Pronounced Listen” but pronounced as indicated by the quote. It just so happens that the word “pronounced” is part of the quote. ◅ Sebastian 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Repetition

The two sections Novak Djokovic#Opposition to COVID-19 vaccine and Novak Djokovic#2022 contain much of the same content. Material relating to the 2022 Aus Open issue should all be in one place. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd initially separated the subsections out to Novak Djokovic#Opposition to COVID-19 vaccine after it was thought that he was going to be able to enter Australia on an exemption, and there wasn't much more to the story than that. But I agree - it makes more sense to trim that subsection down to focus on what he has said about the vaccine in the past and how the exemption implies he's not been vaccinated, then keep the info about his detention and legal battle in a couple paragraphs in Novak Djokovic#2022. A lot of the info in that section would be better off somewhere in 2022 Australian Open, as the clash between the tournament director and the government didn't only affect Djokovic. Bonoahx (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

General note on 2022.

Although I do not do much editing on the pages for current tennis players, I thought I would express my views on the current year regarding Novak Djokovic. No doubt there will be a lot of editors over the forthcoming months (and possibly years) putting information on this page regarding Djokovic applying for vaccination exemptions and documentation granting him entry to various countries, etc. I expect there will be many disagreements on how much information is placed on the page regarding this matter (this has already started happening now). Whether Djokovic is regarded as the greatest male tennis player of all time could potentially be determined by the outcomes of these issues. So in my view, all of the events that take place regarding Djokovic being unable to compete in Grand Slam tournaments due to his vaccination status should be written on this page, though they should be written as succinctly as possible. Also very important for everything that is written to be well sourced and written neutrally and factually, without hyperbole and editors' POV. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems some of the "hyperbole" has stemmed from statements made by Djokovic himself, and his family members, about his being "imprisoned" and having his "human rights breached"? I quite agree about sources, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Important that the decisions are listed more than the reactions of the people involved. Also, this is something that could potentially last all year, so putting elongated descriptions of everything is not what is required. Anyway, that is my view. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But it's not just a local issue when his father jumps in with both feet and Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić says that the ‘whole of Serbia’ is backing him and accuses Australia of "maltreatment". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The reports indicate Djokovic is free to leave his hotel and return home if he chooses, so he is not a prisoner. The hotel may not be very pleasant or hygienic, but I don't think in six months time the conditions of Djokovic's hotel in Australia will be of much interest to many people viewing this page. It may be listed in an article about coronavirus quarantine in Australia but shouldn't be mentioned in Djokovic's article, in my view. However, the decision of the Australian government to deny Djokovic entry, if this is what the ruling is after the appeal is heard, will be of importance in six months time. As I said in my original post, similar rulings may potentially be replicated in other countries later in the year and may mean Djokovic is not regarded as the greatest male player of all time. This is very important indeed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we'll have to disagree on that. Even if he succeeds in his appeal on Monday and he stays for the tournament, his game may not be up to much if he's not allowed outside to practice? Not sure they even have ping-pong at the Park Hotel. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Being confined to his hotel room is standard practice (remember last year's event with Tomic's girlfriend's quarantine vlogs?) The condition of his hotel is not particularly relevant, unless he wins his appeal but contracts an illness in the hotel. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure the Australian authorities had a choice of where Djokovic should be detained. I think they are making the point that he's no different from anyone else. I think this has proved controversial. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a story doing the rounds the past couple of days, but in six months time, will the condition of Djokovic's hotel room in Australia be of great importance? I think not. The decision of the Australian government to deny Djokovic entry will still be important in six months time though. Potentially (if similar decisions are made in other countries during the rest of the year) it could be something tennis historians are discussing in 100 years time: the story of how Djokovic did not win more than 20 slams because of the rules on unvaccinated people entering countries. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, could be. We don't yet know if all the other 20 detention facilities (if there are any}, will be described as being like prisons and usually used for incarcerating asylum seekers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"described as being like prisons". Djokovic is not imprisoned. He is free to leave Australia if he chooses. As for the conditions of Australian detention facilities, these are better described in an article on Australian quarantine than an article on Novak Djokovic. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the cause of the controversy is the quality of the establishment being used to "accommodate" Djokovic. If he had been given the penthouse at The Crown or The Langham, unannounced, then there might have been less fuss. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. at least maybe he can now share a few tinnies with Renata Voráčová (... but the barbie's probably gone tits-up)

It may be a story now, but long term, when reviewing Djokovic's career, most people won't be discussing whether Djokovic stayed in a five star hotel when he was in Australia. Whereas they will be talking about whether he didn't pass 20 slams because of rules on unvaccinated players. People still talk about how Connors was not allowed to play the French Open in 1974 because he played World Team Tennis (and won the other three Grand Slam singles titles that year), but this story is potentially bigger than that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And he wasn't even locked up in a grotty French hotel, was he. Yes, people will talk, or loudly chant in the case of the Melbourne Serbians. Still awaiting the 20 slams that Djokovic won't win; perhaps you could construct a table in preparation? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I said Djokovic may not pass 20 slams, not that he would win 20 more! I am just imagining Nadal's face as he sits in his luxury hotel room watching the story unfold. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you get vegan witchetty grubs and kangaroo anus? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But it seems now that all the international controversy has all been magically disappeared. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is that what is written on the page now (as I am writing this) is the correct amount of information factually written. Bear in mind similar scenarios could play out at all the Grand Slams and these rulings will be noted in the 2022 section also. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

He is in quarantine hotel, not in detention hotel [[1]] --79.178.224.240 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source says "He was then taken to a government detention hotel." The ABC source says "Djokovic was taken to a hotel controlled by immigration officials at around 10am on Thursday." The Guardian here says "The infamous detention hotel in Carlton, Melbourne, where the tennis star is likely to spend the weekend as he awaits a court hearing over his visa cancellation has been described by detainees as a “torture cell”." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The BBC evening news last night had a report which showed a hotel room in the same hotel as Djokovic. It is not a "torture cell" and Djokovic is not being held prisoner. This utter sh*t being hyped up in the a lot of the press is getting ridiculous now. If Djokovic is bored and wants something to do in between torture sessions, perhaps he would like to count the number of flying pigs floating around outside his window! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You think we should call it a "quarantine hotel", despite the two current sources? I'm sure the Serbian community in Melbourne is a very sincere and dedicated form of support for Djokovic. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Support change to "torture chamber". Sod25m (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose change to "torture chamber." That description is from detainees, who presumably have been detained there for many years, per some sources. That does sound a form of torture. The description doesn't apply to Novak; he is not being detained but is free to leave Australia anytime. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Twas a joke. Just channeling my inner Srđan. Sod25m (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The press aren't interested in the torture chamber anymore and are now oblivious to the intermittent cries of pain coming from his hotel room and the flying pigs. Today's headlines are all about Djokovic contracting covid in December. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 section and vaccination is overblown to ridiculousness

This section should be only to the point on Djokovic and his Australian visa problems. We don't need "worldwide" speculation... just that he applied on january 4th and was accepted by the two organizations. And issues about others are not needed here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. But if there's going to be anything written on the issue it should be that he was granted an exemption and got held anyway while others under same circumstances were not. That's enough for the reader to understand that it's not all about "the rules", them applying to everyone and that there's generally something fishy going on. Without us waiting for the "reliable source" of a minutely granulated Scott Morrison biography. Who was "appaled" or "displeased" about any part of the situation seems irrelevant. Bahati (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Other do not matter... this is a Djokovic article. There will always be exceptions but we don't know the details of theirs as we do Djokovic. We don't tell our readers there is something fishy going on. Almost no other player had any issues getting in at all. A small amount applied for special circumstances and a small amount of those didn't make the cut. I have no doubt there is fishy politics going on and I have no doubt that the Djokovic camp has also been fishy. But that's opinion not a paragraph summary of the situation. This isn't a bio on Novak... this isn't a blurb on a popular tourist attraction...this is a summary of his career of which this a one week segment. We don't do a blow by blow description and say he's in a torture cell. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Others do matter because Djokovic lives in a world populated by these "others." After all, that is what why we have vaccine mandates in the first place. Whatever reliable sources report, we include. Yes, the torture cell is overblown. That some with similar exemptions made it in at first has been reported in reliable sources and is relevant. I agree everyone---Djokovic, his parents, Tiley, the state of Victoria, Morrison, the feds, and the ABF with its selective enforcement---is posturing for dramatic effect and obscuring the central issues. Vaccination mandates matter. Consistency of rule enforcement matters. Consistency between federal and state authorities matters. Those who cancel visas are obliged to explain why the visa was issued in the first place when the information available to the agencies didn't change any between the two points. Reliables sources are reporting these issues, and our exposition must follow that lead. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea if there is " something fishy going on." We just follow WP:RS sources. This has been an international controversy. Now nicely swept under the carpet here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The source says the type of visa and exemption are the same and it is highly pertinent that Djokovic is being treated differently than others and to his detriment. That's one of three main issues. 1) Is everything being done "by the book", 2) Is it done by the book in all instances and 3) Does the book allow for choice in some matters. Or was it absolutely unavoidable that he be put into what ammounts to a refugee camp.

Answers to these questions will form information pertinent to this article, ie. if he was maliciosly prevented from attempting to achieve a historic record or not. Bahati (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Betterkeks, please use the talk page, not edit summaries for substantial discussion. And feel free to add the information about the Czeck player being allowed into the country and to play some matches only to be subsequently deported. Bahati (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The treatment of other players is irrelevant to Djokovic. (It's not even being raised in the court case). The correct article to discuss apparent COVID inconsistencies is 2022 Australian Open#COVID-19 vaccination and visa controversies, where it currently appears. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an obscure and nebulous issue so a frame of reference is needed. Otherwise the section is just a useless compendium of geographical and temporal facts and irrelevant opinions. Bahati (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Contracted Covid in December

This information is part of his court filing and so can be considered reliable. We need to include it in the 2022 controversy section. See https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/08/tennis/novak-djokovic-covid-australia-intl-spt/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.228.225 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to word it. He claims to have had Covid-19 on December 16 but there are photos all over the place that show he was out and about many times around that date. It's probably best to wait till we actually know something concrete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much undisputed now that he according to documents Djokovic team provided, he tested positive on 16 December, with results having been returned the same day a sample was taken. This has caused controversy given what he was doing on the following days. The complicating factor is although we know the results were available on 16 December, AFAIK it's not yet confirmed when he became aware of them. It's likely we would eventually include something but this may have to wait until someone asks Djokovic about it. It seems his family was asked about it in his recent press conference but did not comment and there's likely to be a lot of focus on whether he's allowed to play so depending on what happens it could be a few days before we get a clearer picture. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Australian Detention

Podcast on his detention in Australia, not sure if relevant. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:3F:C769:BF87:E41E (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A podcast by a far-right foamer is utterly non-notable and irrelevant to a neutral encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph made me feel ill. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Novax Djokovic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Novax Djokovic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Novax Djokovic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Please remove this article from Category:Serb people. That category has a notice saying This is a container category. Due to its scope, it should contain only subcategories. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Next update

Is there a "hierarchy" or preferred order of citation resources that we should use? Am asking in advance of the possibility that Djokovic will be proven to have lied on his immigration application and committed perjury in court.

Am conscious "freelance podcasts" and blogs may not present the best citation sources. Would any media outlet suffice, or would some outlets be better than others? 37.119.145.21 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources and how good they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources CT55555 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

While it's useful to take a look at RSPS. many sources both good and bad are not listed there. I think the OP should start with reading WP:RS and then move on to reading WP:BLP. "freelance podcasts" and blogs are not just not "the best citation sources", in fact they are almost definitely not acceptable in any way for a BLP with the odd exception of some WP:NEWSBLOGS. Even for news blogs, it is unlikely this article should really use them. Djokovic is extremely notable and this case has received a large amount of coverage. If you can only find news blogs which cover something relating to Djokovic in general, or this case in particular, it's almost definitely WP:UNDUE weight to include it. As for news sites, stay away from tabloid journalism and any site prone to sensantionalism is a good first step when editing BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he did lie was the victim of "human error" on the part of his support team who had filled out the paperwork. And now his visa has been revoked again. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Betting sites (oddschecker etc) are predicting the cancellation will again be overturned. I suspect this is a three-ring circus: the govt didn't recancel for the false statements or questionable COVID test and post-COVID behavior but for health, good order (?), and the public interest. The first objection might have actually stuck, being logical, and cost the AO ticket collections. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well betting sites were wrong. AFAIK this was consistent with what most Australian legal experts were predicting (e.g. [2] [3]) since unlike with the earlier cancellation, Australian law provides were little room for appeal of the minister's decision, hence why it's better to trust experts than betting sites since their odds depend significantly on them betting patterns and them making money, and the wisdom of the crowds doesn't always work. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Deportation

A section needs to be added about his deportation from Australia.178.202.82.89 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why it needs to be a section when it seems that a paragraph or two would be more reasonable? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Amending to be clear) The section "2022: Australian Open controversy" already covers about 3.5 paragraphs regarding the events in Australia and it covers everything from the 14th onward in just a single paragraph. Maybe there could be more written in the current section, but I do not see needing a seperate section for the events of the 14th onward, if that is what you are asking for. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

AFP

For the record, edit Special:Diff/1066079534 (by Griboski) dropped (both of) the news agency (wire service) cites covering the precise details/confirmation of Djokovic's departure from Australia (ie. date/time/place/airline). These had been added to the article because Agence France-Presse (AFP) was wire service source subsequently used by all other media outlets later on. —Sladen (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to add note

See my latest edit summary. Trying to add a note for the A (absent) for the 2022 Australian Open, but the notes list does not seem to want to parse the list, and deletes my note. Some help would be appreciated DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything is fine except for the name. The note you created is named Au22 and the note you are tying to reference is named AuO22, which is causing the problem. I will try to fix it. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added the note with some changes. Feel free to review and alter it as needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Rivalries section to include newer rivals?

I think there should be a blurb about his rivalry with Medvedev, at the least, they've established quite a head to head, and have contested two grand slam finals. This holds more importance than his rivalry with Nishikori, for instance, even though that one has longevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.161.78 (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait and see. I do not see a serious reason for mentioning Nishikori.--24.135.13.63 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "rivalries" section be a completely separate page? I'm basing this off of the fact that Trump has one page on him, and one page on his presidency. .adn.zip (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022 (2)

Under Legacy Replace the sentence:

Djokovic is considered by many to be the greatest tennis player of all time.

With:

As at January 2022, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have all won 20 Grand Slam tournaments. However, many observers consider Djokovic to be the greatest tennis player of all time. Manifiscently (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done With his 2022 Australian Open win, Nadal surpassed a tie held with Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer for the most men's singles major titles of all-time. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

At the bottom of the lead, add:

In January 2022, Djokovic became embroiled in the biggest controversy of his career when he travelled to Australia to play in the Australian Open without being vaccinated against Covid-19. After two court appearances and a worldwide media furore, he was deported by the Australian Government. In the process, he lost the opportunity to become the first player in the world to win 21 Grand Slam tournaments. Manifiscently (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Other editors may wish to trim or adjust. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022 (3)

"As at January 2022, with his win at the Australian Open, Nadal surpassed a tie held with Djokovic and Roger Federer for the most men's singles major titles of all-time."

As this is an article on Djokovic, the focus should be on him, not Nadal. Suggested rewrite: "As of January 2022, Djokovic is tied at second with Federer for the most men's grand slam titles, one behind Nadal." Note: "As at" must be changed to "As of." If we use Djokovic, then for parallelism use Federer (not Roger Federer) and Nadal. The less formal "grand slam titles" makes for easier reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.228.225 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I have slightly adjusted the text, but only partly in line with your version; thanks for your suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

đoković

Đoković's surname is the same as his parent's. There is no such thing as surname in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.151.108.243 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah well, there is. Everywhere it's Djokovic... and that's with him sponsoring it. Like here, and like here, etc... Your only post here and you didn't sign in so I'm guessing hit and run. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length multiple times, see this ridiculously long thread from 15 years ago... in fact I can see similarly asinine threads on every single archive spanning back over a decade and a half. Novak himself doesn't use the Serbian spelling of his name in English-language media and the ITF and ATP player profiles for Djokovic uses the anglicised spelling. I think it's been put to rest! --Bonoahx (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Residence

https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20220117130992/novak-djokovic-wife-jelena-home-marbella-inside-photos/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-novak-djokovic-move-beautiful-marbella-home-living-monte-carlo-15-years https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/novak-djokovic-is-heading-home-question-is-which-home-to-choose-20220117-p59os5.html

New primary residence in Spain? Lena Key (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting off Rivalries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The proposer has edited the sections down to make it more readable, with more detailed content in the respective rivalry articles. Bonoahx (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

---

This article on Djokovic is way too long. I propose that the section titled Rivalries be split off to form its own page as per the box at the head of the article. This is because the Rivalries section is not all about Djokovic, they're also about the rival - and the page is meant to be about him. The new page could be titled Novak Djokovic's rivalries - or similar. Please vote for or against. Manifiscently (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As with many tennis articles a lot of the content in that section appears to have been written with recency bias so there is a lot more detail in that section than is probably necessary. Rivalries is a section for the other big 4 players; Roger Federer#Rivalries, Rafael Nadal#Rivalries, and Andy Murray#Rivalries. You can also see other examples in Serena Williams#Rivalries, Venus Williams#Rivalries, etc. Maybe it would be better for the amount of detail in that section to be refined, particularly because a lot of the rivalries have their own articles anyway. Bonoahx (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legacy

At the moment, the entire Legacy section is devoted to claims that Novak is the GOAT - Greatest Of All Time. The word legacy means something you left behind - it could be money or your reputation. This site describes legacy as "something that happens or exists as a result of things that happened at an earlier time". This site says "A legacy of an event or period of history is something which is a direct result of it and which continues to exist after it is over."

Novak is still number 1. His career is not yet over so calling him the GOAT is not really his legacy until he stops playing (or perhaps until he is dead). Afterall, someone else may come along and be even better - what happens to his 'legacy" as the GOAT then?

Perhaps this section should be renamed "Status" which refers to the position of an individual in relation to others especially in regard to their social or professional position or standing. In the end his 'legacy' may be that he could have been the greatest player but self-sabotaged by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid 19 and never won any more grand slams. Comments welcome. Manifiscently (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That's only one definition.... it also means "carried over from an earlier time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As above, legacy as an adjective can mean "of, relating to, associated with, or carried over from an earlier time". This section is consistent with other high-profile players, such as Rafael Nadal#Legacy. I think either is fine and am not going to revert your edit, but I don't think there's a specific issue with using the word Legacy. Bonoahx (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

He has not ‘self-sabotaged’ his career by not having the covid 19 vaccine. There are bigger things at play. It’s bizarre that players should be forced to have a vaccine instead of testing and quarantine. In fact you could say that by not being vaccinated, Novak has not ‘self-sabotaged’ his body, which he treats with great respect. We still do not know the long-term effects of the vaccination, especially on an elite athlete’s body. Certainly there is an unprecedented amount of players withdrawing or suffering from injury or lack of fitness. Is it due to the vaccine? As for the word ‘legacy’, I believe his legacy will be how he overcame a difficult childhood, not being from a privileged background, and ascended to the heights of magnificence, something other young people could aspire to. Also his charitable work, especially with children’s education through his Foundation, will be part of his legacy. So I think there should be a section headed ‘Legacy’ because it started when he was a child with big dreams, and is ongoing. LadyLindaJM (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Some times, people who have done amazing things tarnish their legacy with one stupid decision or choice in life. Articles on WP require WP:Balance. Manifiscently (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a forum. It is a collection of semi-literate anal-retentives. 97.105.176.210 (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy Again

I added the following material to Novak's legacy section:

His legacy has been tarnished by his on-going refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19. In 2022, this led the Australian government to deny him the visa he needed to play in the Australian Open. Tennis commentator, Peter Bodo, concluded:

"His actions regarding this Australian Open were so selfish, so tone deaf, so indifferent to the feelings of millions who have suffered through the pandemic that it’s difficult to see him winning back the esteem he earned over the past few years."ref

Since then, Djokovic has struggled to compete at the same level. He lost to Jiří Veselý in Dubai in February and then to Alejandro Davidovich Fokina at the Monte Carlo Masters in April. Fokina broke his serve nine times which had never happened before in Djokovic's career. Djokovic admitted that he "ran out of gas" in the third set after spending two months on the sidelines due to his vaccination status.ref, Marcelo Rios, who is also a former World No. 1 ranked player, told La Tercera newspaper:

“If you’re trying to be the best in history and you’re going to give up the race for some vaccines, you have to be the king of stupidity."ref

This material has been removed by three different editors each of whom provided fairly dubious reasons for doing so. For instance @LadyLindaJM deleted it claiming "removed certain paragraphs that should not be included in his ‘legacy’". She provides her opinion - but no explanation as to why these paragraphs are not relevant to his legacy.

@Wikaviani removed the quotes from tennis commentators claiming "that's not really what I call a well-balanced quote, also please read WP:UNDUE." I think Wikaviani is the one who needs to read WP:UNDUE which says "neutrality requires articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". As it currently stands, the Legacy section provides an overwhelmingly uncritical description of Novak's legacy. As such, it does NOT represent all significant viewpoints. Adding some critical concerns about his legacy, helps to bring balance to the section.

What does anyone else think?

I think it's NPOV. At most it would be written as: "Some feel there will be long-term damage to Djokovic's placement among the all-time great tennis players based on his stance against the Covid-19 vaccine. Others have applauded his view of having a choice." There is no need for quotations, just links to several articles and keeping the wording short and to the point. Heck his legacy could very well get more dings for his recent court outbursts rather than his medical choices. That's sort of wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. The damage to his reputation is due to the fact that he is unable to play in most countries (due to his refusal to get vaccinated). As a result of being unable to play as often as he used to, he has gone off the boil and is now losing most of his matches. The fact that others have applauded his choice has nothing to do with his legacy as a tennis player. Its totally irrelevant. Manifiscently (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No that temporarily damaged his ability to keep adding on to his titles. Looks like that is over except in the US. You might as well add in a section to Rod Laver about the damage to his legacy by turning pro in 1962. In some views it added to his legacy by showing how well he did despite not being able to play events. It made Laver more mystical. And he is not losing most of his matches... he just started up again like after an injury and lost. He might run the table again at Wimbledon now that players like Medvedev have been banned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The fact that others have applauded his choice is because they agree with him from a medical or humanistic perspective. That has nothing to do with his legacy as a tennis player. Its totally irrelevant. Manifiscently (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Then we disagree, as it looks like others have. How he is perceived will be part of his legacy. It isn't just number of titles. You are talking about a lot of maybes here. Players have injuries that take 5x as long to recover from than he's been out. You don't ding their legacy for it. You wait to see what happens over time. Right now this is a tiny blip on the radar compared to the time in his entire career. So it's one thing for a tiny mention with balanced views but I can't go along with the lopsided mention with unneeded quotations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And if he can't play in the US, then his ranking will soon be on a downhill slide. The ATP tour is made up of 64 tennis tournaments in 31 countries. 39 of those tournaments are in the US. If he doesn't get vaccinated and can't play in over half of all ATP tournaments, his top ranking will soon be well and truely over. That will affect his legacy which is what this discussion is about. Manifiscently (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And that's really looking at things through greasy glasses. He played sixteen events in 2019 (the last non-pandemic year), four of which were in the US. He'll just add four events someplace else on the schedule unless he wants to slow down because of his age. But he won't miss half his tournaments... that's a bias statement bordering on ridiculous. It looks like you have no takers on this issue. I had some sympathy for a minor inclusion but could never go along with your proposal. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So you disagree with Djokovic himself who admitted that he "ran out of gas" in the third set of his recent game in Monte Carlo after spending two months on the sidelines due to his vaccination status. Novak Djokovic suffers shocking career first in Monte Carlo disaster Here's the full quote:"Physically I completely collapsed. I couldn't move any more. I didn't like the way I felt in the end. He was the better player. I was hanging on the ropes the entire match. I just ran out of gas completely."Novak Djokovic suffered career first that he'll want to forget in Monte Carlo Masters loss. If you are unwilling to accept Djokovic's own description of what happened, cited in reliable sources, I guess there is little point in continuing this discussion. Manifiscently (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What the heck does Djokovic being out of shape after a long layoff have to do with the price of eggs? Yeah I guess we're done here. Good luck with convincing others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment : Manifiscently, i suggest you read NPOV and UNDUE. Having read this thread and the arguments given, i agree with Fyunck. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

OK what you're agreeing to is his statement that "Some feel there will be long-term damage to Djokovic's placement among the all-time great tennis players based on his stance against the Covid-19 vaccine. Others have applauded his view of having a choice. There is no need for quotations, just links to several articles and keeping the wording short and to the point." So lets add something along those lines. However the vague statement "Some feel" needs to be replaced with specifics. Manifiscently (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a running (or color) commentary on what is happening in the tennis world. There is no need to include everything every commenter says. Tangentially, just like Nadal, Djokovic too is no longer chasing the #1 ranking, only Grand Slam and ATP1000 titles. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. At most the only sentence that should be added is "Some feel there has been some damage to Djokovic's placement among the all-time great tennis players based on his stance against the Covid-19 vaccine. Others have applauded his view of having a choice." Add some sources but that's it. Any more is really too much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The word "some" should be avoided as it is a weasel word.--Wolbo (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess it's because I see "some, many, most" so often in articles as long as they are backed by sources. We could use "several sports writers." My point was a short simple sentence would be the max on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Manifiscently, you claimed you had consensus in your edit summary but all I see is you insisting on adding controversial content. I'm the fifth editor to remove your content after Alchemyprojects, LadyLindaJM, Wikaviani, Firefangledfeathers, and now Fyunck(click) is the sixth. The IP editor is the 7th. Djokovic has an almost 20-year tennis career, his personal health choices have nothing to do with his tennis legacy. Forget about it. OffsideGoal (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Novak refuses to be vaccinated meant that he was unable to defend his title in Australia. The controversy created worldwide media attention. Are you saying Wiki should not include information about such controversies? Manifiscently (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Many are telling you exactly that! It's already covered extensively in his Tennis Career section. It is unknown how it will affect his legacy which isn't based on one major tournament. You need to get off this tangent rapidly as this is the only article you have edited in a month. I'm not sure it should even be in his legacy section at all (you put it in), but what's there is adequate without your added "context" summaries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And it appears to be continuing, with multiple editor reverts. I foresee a bad ending if it continues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

... and the first to achieve a double Career Grand Slam.

Incorrect. Needs "in the Open Era". The 2 Roys did it first, albeit (partly) in the Amateur Era. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

22 Major Titles is not in the list of records he holds. Please update. 73.86.46.50 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Fake info

In this article it says Djokovic matched Budge and achieved NCYGS.

It's a lie, according to Wikipedia, since on Grand Slam articles it says Budge only did CYGS. Wikipedia is against double counting so Budge achieved CYGS only and therefore Djokovic is the only one with NCYGS.

Ricardo 78.0.31.105 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That wikipedia article says that those who attained the Grand Slam won't be listed for the lesser ncygs. He did attain that achievement though. It's sort of like if you win three superbowls in a row no one cares if you won two superbowls in a row. You don't get plopped on lists for two in a row since you are on lists for the harder-to-do three in a row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No,it is not like that. Your logic is flawed. If you win Super Bowl you've won Super Bowl. If you won 4 in a row, that's better than 3 is a row. The equal comparison to super bowl is grand slam title. Winning 4 in a row is better than winning 3 in a row.

With CYGS and NCYGS 4 in a row can be superior to 6 in a row. CYGS of 4 vs NCYGS of 6.

You can not list Djokovic as "matching Budge" if such Budge's achievement is not listed as an achievement at all. I mean it's blatantly stupid. For example, Djokovic has 373 weeks at #1 and he's matched everyone when he surpassed them, yet obviously you'll write that he stands alone at 373 weeks.

I vote for finally some logic here. Let NCYGS be "holding all 4 slams title at any point other than last slam" and CYGS be "holding all 4 slam titles at last slam". Then it's easy and logical. Laver has 2 CYGS, Budge 1 CYGS and 2 NCYGS, Djokovic 1 NCYGS. Let's vote? Ricardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.69.79 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah well it doesn't work that way. It's not my logic, it's the way it is by definition of the terms. Both Budge and Djokovic have had a ncygs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

It looks as though Djokovic’s all time records have incorrect dates. Some of which are in the 1970’s before he was even born. 84.69.109.154 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see where it's a bit confusing. Those dates are dates the events started, not when Djokovic set the record. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GOAT status in description

Shouldnt Djokovic have the “known” phrase “considered by many/some the Greatest tennis player of all time” in his description? He deserves already. 2804:14C:658E:598B:C0C:91C6:C10D:F746 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this claim? Tails Wx 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of deserves, and it isn't just about numbers anyway. We try not to put water-cooler subjective stuff in the lead and instead put that info in the legacy section. We did that with Federer for years. Just because "some" think that doesn't mean it goes up top. This is an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

In the penultimate paragraph of Early and personal life, where it says "Djokovic is a self-described fan of languages, speaking Serbian, English, French, German, and Italian.[24][25]." It must be added that he also speaks Spanish fluently, I know this because I am Spanish. 188.78.58.177 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Link to Srdjan Djokovic article (i.e. his father)

User:Spirit Fox99 has twice removed the link to the article about Srdjan Djokovic (his father). I write here to invite comment on this. User:Spirit Fox99's concerns about the notability of his father can he discussed even more at Talk:Srdjan Djokovic but deleting links to an article seem very odd to me and I am going to re-add them. CT55555(talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was created by you, therefore there is slight bias in your opinion on the viability of the article. It has already been questioned by wiki users within the first day of creation (for very good reasons), and has already been nominated for deletion. Considering the article was created by you, you created the hyperlink edit, and the viability of both the article and your edit are in question, the hyperlink should be removed unless the article you created is no longer in question. Considering all this, using the three revert rule cannot apply in this situation. I will revert it back to the original, stable version. Thank you. Spirit Fox99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1) The article isn't deleted, so there is no point in removing the wikilink, and 2), see this edit. Let the AfD situation play out, and then remove the wikilink if it closes as delete, merge, or redirect. Tails Wx 05:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It was just created... it was not something that has been around for 3 years. It looks pretty weak as an article so we should certainly wait to see if it's viable before linking it for all wikipedia readers to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait out the AfD storm! Tails Wx 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus that Srdjan Djokovic is notable. AFD link Thanks to User:Dream_Focus who already added the link back in. CT55555(talk) 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Combining ATP and WTA record in the one "absolute record"

It's wrong, in encyclopedical terms. Those are records from two different associations, thus they should not be combined. The author insist that "deleting and denying is kind of gender and racial discrimination", which is pretentious and factually incorrect. The issue no need to be gender related, in the first place. It is wrong to combine records from different organisations, with a different set of rules. I would understand that kind of combinations on fandom pages, though.

In addition, the author's insistsence that "this part of sentence regarding record in both women and men record was part of Stefi Graf page for years", should not be an argument, because it was mistake to be on the Stefi Graf's page, in the first place. EchoBlu (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with above. It's apples and oranges. Fyunck(click) (talk)

I agree it does not belong in the lead. In theory, it could be included elsewhere in the article if and only if it was something that reliable sources specifically pointed out, just as if they pointed out how his record compared to that of people in other sports. Melcous (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

His rank is 1 not 2 on Monday. His weeks at 1 are now 381

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

He is now #2 in the world. Rankings have been updated. See ATP website. 69.156.202.204 (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Looking at the page right now, and it says that he is still number one as of 08 May 2023. Could you provide a link to what you are looking at? Heart ^(talk) 04:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not officially till next May 22. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

can anyone explain why his personal life is partly merged into a section on his early life, in addition to a section on his off the court activities that mentions nothing about his marriage? natemup (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

There has been a mistake Novak's middle name is Vlada let me edit it Kankar69 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Xan747 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Very bad mistake?

In record section about "triple career grand slam", "non-calendar grand slam" and so on, they year mentioned is - 1905? Is that not a mistake? It should be "since 1925" since that was the year of 4 majors per season, no?

Additionaly, I see a logical inconsistency here accros all wikipedia. It says Djokovic is not standing alone with his "non-calendar grand slam achievement", rather he shares it with Budge? OK.

But if so, why isn't Budge listed as non-calendar grand slam winner in his own page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Budge#Records

No sign of that there, it does not mention that he "shares non-calendar slam with Djokovic, in fact, there is no mention of non-calendar grand slam in Budge's page?

Why is non-calendar grand slam good achievement for Djokvovic to be credited with, but not good enough for Budge?

Also no mention that Budge has done/won non-calendar Grand Slam here, either? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions#Non-calendar_year_Grand_Slam

No Budge. The way I see it, Budge is not credited for his non-calendar slam, since the non-calendar grand slam streak is partially part of his Grand Slam strewak and perhaps it's double counting. I get that, but then it menans Djokovic is the only one with a non-calendar grand slam? Why does it then say he shares it with Budge?

I have nothing for, or against, either Budge or Djokovic, it just that I am amazed that we can invoke non-calendar grand slam so arbitrarily accross wikiepdia, depending on mood and preferences.

So I ask, does Budge indeed has a non-calendar grand slam, or has that been abolished (absorbed) into his Grand Slam?

Based on that reply/decision you should do a clean up and editing accross all wikipedia on this issue to force a logical consistency.

Thank you.

93.140.175.231 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Leonardo the Voyager

“becoming the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors”

this is false. 82.9.164.100 (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Grand slams

“becoming the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors”

FALSE STATEMENT 82.9.164.100 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Change to double quotes, please

I will not create an account. Please change this

was referred to as the 'Big Three' among fans

to

was referred to as the "Big Three" among fans

I don't know who did those single quotes but it's wrong and unprofessional. 71.206.10.155 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The native name and IPA

The native name and IPA should be kept in the lead, rather than in a footnote or in a lower section. They were moved by some native-name-phobe and IPA-phobe again and again. 下世荷兰人 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks won't help with this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Did I attack you??? Just because I called you native-name-phobe and IPA-phobe? Ridiculous. I didn't mean any offence - I was just describing who you really are. 下世荷兰人 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And if I see it again I'll report it and let administration decide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please continue to revert these edits back to the wiki consensus of including native name and IPA in the lead. Thank you. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Another most important world record is that he is the only ATP player to have beaten another ATP player 20 straight times. This becomes even more impressive understanding how high up a player must be to have played the best player 20 times and that this player Monfils has a dominant winning record against Current top #1 players like Medvedev and Alcaraz and others making this feat even more unbelievable.

A calendar year grand slam has no greater importance than 4 straight grand slams and should be made clear that Djokovic has done it once and Laver twice.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.210.217 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)