CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2001 Salem Open – Singles

2001 tennis event results

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 1, 2026
Entity authorityQ3786656 ↗
Source-derived summary

Nicolas Kiefer was the defending champion but did not compete that year.

Marcelo Ríos won in the final 7–6(7–3), 6–2 against Rainer Schüttler.

Seeds

A champion seed is indicated in bold text while text in italics indicates the round in which that seed was eliminated.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “2001 Salem Open – Singles” as 2001 tennis event results. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Salem, Singles and tennis.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current 45-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Salem, Singles and tennis providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2001 Salem Open – Singles”, the useful work is to connect “2001 tennis event results” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3786656. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “2001 Salem Open – Singles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2001 Salem Open – Singles primary sources, 2001 Salem Open – Singles archive and Salem research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2001 Salem Open – Singles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2001 Salem Open – Singles” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.