Talk:Alen Hadzic

There are major violations in this article that need to be addressed immediately

Follow-up on BLP and NPOV Violations in the Alen Hadzic Article

I'd like to follow up with additional concerns about the article's tone, language, and sourcing—specifically where it violates Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP), Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), and Verifiability (WP:V):

1. Use of the phrase “known [bad person]” This appears in a quote from an advocacy attorney, not any court or investigative finding. There has been no criminal charge or conviction. Per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LABEL, this is a serious violation. Wikipedia should not include defamatory criminal accusations unless supported by a conviction in a court of law.
2. Allegation that Hadzic “targeted intoxicated women” This claim originated in one BuzzFeed article and is based entirely on anonymous sources. There is no official report or finding supporting this. Repeating it across the article gives the impression that it is a verified fact, which violates WP:BLP and WP:RS. Claims like this require exceptional sourcing.
3. Overuse of repeated or circular sourcing Many statements rely on repetition from the same set of outlets that refer back to the same original sources. This violates WP:CIRCULAR and inflates the appearance of independent verification.
4. Use of the word “opined” to describe the arbitrator’s decision This is an editorial word choice that introduces subtle bias. The arbitrator legally reversed the suspension, which is a matter of record. Presenting it as simply her “opinion” downplays the legal significance of the decision. This goes against WP:NPOV.
5. Misleading language about Olympic status The sentence “he never did compete at the Olympics, however, and Hadzic was therefore not an Olympian” appears to intentionally minimize his role. Hadzic qualified and traveled with the U.S. Olympic team as an official alternate. That is recognized by governing bodies as Olympic participation, regardless of whether an athlete competes. This language appears meant to degrade rather than inform, violating WP:NPOV.
6. Statement that “at least six women had filed claims of sexual misconduct, including rape” Please provide a source for the claim that any of the allegations officially included rape. If none exists, this is a serious violation of WP:BLP. The use of that word without legal documentation or citation is defamatory and should be removed immediately.
7. BuzzFeed claim about Coach Aufrichtig “ignoring complaints” This is hearsay and not supported by formal records. Including vague allegations about a third party based solely on anonymous sources does not meet the threshold for inclusion under WP:V and WP:BLP.
8. Statement about alleged groping in 2015 “In 2015… a young woman said, Hadzic groped her.” There is no linked legal complaint or official process related to this incident. Presenting this as a factual event, without sufficient attribution or sourcing, is a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:V. If this is to be included, the sourcing must meet the standard for serious accusations.

---

Summary of Requested Changes

• Remove defamatory or legally unsupported terms and claims (e.g., “known [bad person]”, “including rape”).
• Avoid biased word choices (“opined”, “therefore not an Olympian”).
• Reevaluate content originating solely from unverified or anonymous sources.
• Restore career highlights (e.g., national championships, Olympic team selection) to provide balance.
• Shorten and rebalance the lead to reflect the full scope of the article’s content.

Thank you for your time and willingness to review these concerns. I am doing my best to follow the appropriate process and welcome additional guidance if needed. Liabilityforslander (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This is your first and only edit to Wikipedia. Do you have a connection to the article subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes I do have conflict of interest with the subject of this article. I have stated it in several instances. Goricah3 (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that User:Liabilityforslander is you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: No, that is not me. I am not sure why that name is attached there. Goricah3 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you write that post? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Yes,I did,but I probably wasn’t signed in when I posted it.I wasn’t being very careful,but I didn’t sign off using that name.Sorry for any confusion.Goricah3 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The diff (Help:Diffs explains) shows irrefutably that the comment was made by that account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain this because I never knowingly created or used that account. I tried to go to my profile preferences to see my log in history but there was no such option. I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to explain how that happened. My only explanation would be that I created the post when I was not logged in, and,unnowingly,I signed off,pressed "~" four times while logged out, which added the signature that didn't belong to me. Goricah3 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

@V. S. Video: please can you explain why each of the sources you removed in this edit is unreliable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The "thefencingcoach" source is a blog article published by "YourMemeSucks". The "sportngin" one and the book do not mention Hadzic. The Salon source says what was written in that sentence I removed, but apparently Salon is not considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, although Buzzfeed is. V. S. Video (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern about wording

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.

I am concerned about the phrasing in the article, which currently states:

> "By July 2022, at least six women had filed claims of sexual misconduct, including rape, against Hadzic with SafeSport."

• The term **“rape”** appears in several instances in the article, but Alen Hadzic has **never been accused of rape** according to his attorney.
• The number of complainants is **not independently verified** by reliable sources.

**Proposed revision:**

> "By July 2022, several women had filed claims of sexual misconduct against Hadzic with SafeSport."

This phrasing removes unverified specifics while maintaining accuracy and Wikipedia’s standards of **neutrality and verifiability**.

Goricah3 (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The cited source also has this quote, from Jack Wiener, the attorney who represented one of the women complainants: "“Mr. Palma [Hadzic's attorney] himself refers here to a ‘nonconsensual sexual incident,' [...] He evades admitting whether Mr. Hadzic was accused of having sex with women without their consent.” "

The statement about six woman making accusations, including rape, is cited to an independent source.

I appreciate that this must be very stressful for you, but you really do appear to be too close to this to read the sources neutrally.

Anyone thinking of using such sources needs to read them in full. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will not be pushed out or harassed because I’m a woman or due to my conflict of interest. I am following Wikipedia’s procedures and suggesting edits in good faith. As a beginner editor, I can make small errors and I expect to be corrected kindly when needed, but my COI should not be used to dismiss my contributions.

A claimant’s attorney stated:

“Mr. Palma himself refers here to a ‘nonconsensual sexual incident,’ [...] He evades admitting whether Mr. Hadzic was accused of having sex with women without their consent.”

This reflects the attorney’s remarks and is not a verified fact. Wikipedia must distinguish between sources’ interpretations and verifiable facts.

Just because outlets like BuzzFeed or others report something does not make it true. Mr. Hadzic was never criminally charged, and Wikipedia’s BLP policy requires careful wording of allegations. Only verified facts or clearly attributed allegations may be included.

As for the media reporting, I will say this -media can report findings or accusations, but they must frame them carefully. An internal investigation may conclude by a preponderance of evidence that misconduct likely occurred. This is a civil/internal standard, not a criminal conviction, and responsible reporting distinguishes between allegations, internal findings, and criminal charges.

My goal is to ensure the article reflects reliable sources accurately, without unverified interpretations or implications. Goricah3 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

"I will not be pushed out or harassed because I’m a woman or due to my conflict of interest." If you think that I am (or anyone else is) harassing you because you are a woman, or for any other reason, please report that at WP:ANI. Otherwise, you are required to assume good faith.

"This reflects the attorney’s remarks and is not a verified fact." The same can be said of statements made by your son's attorney, which you apparently wish us to take at face value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I want to keep this discussion focused on content and Wikipedia policy.My goal is to ensure the Alen Hadzic article reflects reliable sources accurately,and in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV,without unverified interpretations or implications.

It’s a matter of record that Hadzic was sanctioned and ultimately banned by SafeSport for misconduct, and that fact belongs in the article.However,ultimately,I don’t believe statements made by attorneys, whether for Hadzic or for others, should be included in the biography at all.These remarks are advocacy and are intended to influence the outcome of proceedings, not to provide neutral,verifiable facts.Including them risks giving undue weight to one-sided arguments.

Hadzic’s own denials,on the other hand,are part of the public record and should be noted to maintain balance.

It has also been noted by other editors that the article reads just short of an attack piece, and I think it would benefit from a careful review.I’m asking for your help in assessing this, to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability.

Best, Goricah3 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing: I apologize for my words above.I appreciate your good faith, and, going forward, I'll focus only on keeping my contributions about content and policy. Goricah3 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of family's names

@Pigsonthewing: I took a look at the article history and I noticed that Goricah3 removed the names of the subject's family members, an edit which you reverted. I took a look at the article this information is cited to, and the name of the subject's parents are only mentioned once in passing. Per WP:NPF, and taking into account everything else that's going on here, I believe it may be appropriate to omit their names, especially if that's what Goricah3 wants. I think we should do well here to balance our concerns about conflict of interest editing and "POV-pushing" with making sure we're being respectful to all the people involved here. Let me know what you think. MediaKyle (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to you or anyone else with no COI editing the article as normal, in line with policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Just didn't want it to look like I was undermining you or anything. I'm going to go ahead and make that adjustment then. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)