Talk:Carl Hart

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carl Hart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706082204/http://www.highpricethebook.com:80/author.html to http://www.highpricethebook.com/author.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Movement to draft space
why did you move this article to draft space? He clearly meets WP:N and while the article could use improvement I don't see why this can't be done in main space. Sizeofint (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there was a large template on it saying it should be at AFC, move it back to mainspace if you like where it will be reviewed by New Page PatrolAtlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliance on primary sources
This article has quite a number of primary sources, but there are quite a number of news articles that could be used as sources.

If you have any questions about swapping in WP:Secondary sources and/or editing the content based on the new sources, please let me know.

There are also a number of places where there was no citation, I added a citation needed tag. If you don't have sources, the content should be removed. Please see WP:BLP.

It's quite an interesting article, by the way!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Extremely biased
This entire article is extremely biased in favor of the subject and his work/opinions/advocacy. It's not even trying to be subtle about it. It reads like a fan page, not an encyclopedia entry. Deepfrieddough (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't explained which statements you're contesting or why you believe them to be wrong; just looks like you don't like his work, his conclusions, or him (or a combination of the foregoing), and that's not sufficient reason to flag the article.Marguerite.de.Valois.2000 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading sentence, probably an oversight
I'm not a regular contributor, so sorry if I did something wrong. I didn't edit the article, but this sentence is flawed:

"This article is one example of his extensive research in drug addictions, and serves as a framework for looking at addiction as a disease rather than a crime."

It is under the section "Research", subsection "Developing Pharmacotherapies for Cannabis and Cocaine Use Disorders".

This is incorrect because Dr. Hart has been clear that he does not believe in the disease model of addiction, and instead subscribes to the life-process model of addiction, where rational alternatives can deter drug addicted behavior, and that it is not (an incurable) disease. He has himself done empirical work on what he calls "the myth of the irrational drug addict". I will link to proof of each claim I made below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_model_of_addiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-process_model_of_addiction

http://drcarlhart.com/addiction-not-brain-disease/

https://www.thefix.com/dr-carl-hart-calling-addiction-brain-disease-promotes-harmful-drug-policies

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/drug-addicts-make-rational-choices_n_3955171.html

I would suggest not removing the sentence entirely, but changing it to the accurate statement by splitting it into three sentences: "This article is one example of his extensive research in drug addictions. It serves as a framework to treat addicted people as rational actors, not as criminals or people with a disease (Hart believes referring to addiction as a disease promotes harmful drug policies, and does not believe addiction is a brain disease). However, Dr. Hart does recognize the individual need in some cases for pharmacological aid in breaking addictive behaviors."

Of course, add the little notations with my links above if you edit it...I don't think I should.

Lastly, I think it would be sort of wrong in some way to just cut the sentence to the shortened one that starts the three I submit above. Just leaving it at "this article is one example of his extensive research in drug addictions", is leaving out the part about NOT treating drug addicted people as criminals, which is essential to the point of the article. However, since the assumption was to treat it as a disease, then it is important (just because of such an assumption) to mention he does NOT think of it that way, and instead lends credence to a minority theory, which runs somewhat counter or in opposition to the most popularly held theory, the disease model. You could link "rational actors" to the "life-process model" article too, but that might be unnecessary. I don't need this part to promote the opposed theory, just show, with integrity, that one exists. The assumption of treating it as a disease shows how important such empirically backed minority views are in science, especially concerning our current opioid problem. Whether or not you agree with his model, it is scientific to give it voice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:45C7:9568:ED30:3C2C:2C6A:9A0 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I see this has yet to be corrected or debated. It requires attention still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:45C9:A1E8:E800:C8FA:D0D2:550B (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

New source
Hart was featured in The Independent's article "What does the poster boy for drug misuse really look like?". However, the article has a paywall. Hopefully, a Wikipedia editor who is also a subscriber of The Independent can add information to Hart's Wikipedia article. --Jollibinay (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Peacock tag (Feb 2021)
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Can you provide some detail on the "wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" that you found in this article? Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure thing:
 * He is particularly interested in what social and psychological factors influence self-administration of drugs.[8] He uses his research as a scientific basis for his presentations on the importance of decriminalizing drugs. He cites the criminalization of crack cocaine (typically associated with black communities) and lack of similar criminalization of powder cocaine (traditionally associated with white communities) as an example of how drug criminalization has been based on social problems rather than scientific fact.[12] this work provides scientific evidence to debunk the myths about hard drugs, and to work toward more lenient and humane policies. --Sourced to a magazine run by Hart's alma mater, a Ted Talk made by Hart, and a book written by Hart
 * Hart's research acknowledges structural injustices, but also plays into an oppression analysis perspective of psychology. His research in some ways mirrors the work of Martin Seligman. Seligman did research on dogs, later used as a human model, finding that dogs placed in a situation where they cannot escape pain learn helplessness and lose the ability to escape when the option is reopened to them.[21] Hart's research has similar tones: he indicates a lack of positive outlets and activities as a reason for drug use in communities. His work differs in acknowledging the extreme structural injustices that further oppress and imprison black people. He uses his research to argue that laws intended to make a society safer based on empirical evidence, rather than an oppressive legal system that promotes white supremacy, will move us closer to justice-- sourced to Hart's Ted Talk (and a book that has nothing to do with Hart (i.e., WP:SYNTH)
 * Decriminalization of drug use and alternative policies that emphasize effective treatments are called for. --sourced to a paper co-written by Hart
 * This article is one example of his extensive research in drug addictions, and serves as a framework for looking at addiction as a disease rather than a crime. -- Unsourced, but the previous citations were again to a paper co-written by Hart
 * Hart is working to expose racism embedded in drug laws and to decriminalize drug use through policies that are scientifically based rather than heavily influenced by social determinants of the era --sourced to a ref that has nothing to do with Hart, and a ref to Hart's own website
 * He also uses the intersection of his understanding about the systemic racism inherent in drug criminalization, in combination with his extensive knowledge about drugs, to combat mainstream stories which perpetuate myths of black (and other minority) inferiority --sourced to Hart's own website
 * ... with the hope that scientifically grounded research will trump the racist policies currently in place, and decrease the unjust incarceration and punishment of black communities for drug use. --Unsourced
 * Overall, most of this article looks like it was written by an acolyte of Hart. The article lacks a great deal of independent, reliable sources (which is one of the reasons why there is so much puff). If we can find secondary sources that talk about Hart (and summarize those sources in a neutral way), and if can cut out the self-serving primary sources, then I believe the tag can be removed. I hope this helps! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like most of the puffery was added by a SPA: . The user's only other edits were to Signithia Fordham (which also has some NPOV issues). It looks like Hart was influenced by Fordham, and she is cited in this article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Overall, most of this article looks like it was written by an acolyte of Hart. The article lacks a great deal of independent, reliable sources (which is one of the reasons why there is so much puff). If we can find secondary sources that talk about Hart (and summarize those sources in a neutral way), and if can cut out the self-serving primary sources, then I believe the tag can be removed. I hope this helps! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like most of the puffery was added by a SPA: . The user's only other edits were to Signithia Fordham (which also has some NPOV issues). It looks like Hart was influenced by Fordham, and she is cited in this article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Thanks for the notes! I recognized the problems you noted, but I don't see them as...puffery, just bad sourcing and poor writing (I pinged you to see if I was missing something!) From what I've read about Hart, he is a quite highly accomplished academic, and also publicly outspoken with controversial views about psychoactive drug legislation and use. To me, the article overall simply attempts to convey this, only, poorly. Anyhow, I've edited out a lot of extraneous stuff, and I intend to build up more comprehensive "Career" and "Research" sections, and do something about "Implications and Influence" -- there's ample reliable sources. (FYI, I became aware of Hart recently, around the publicity for his new book; when I came to WP to check him out and found this unsatisfying article, I started editing it -- like a meditation/hobby! :) Cheers! --Tsavage (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not too familiar with him myself, but I agree his views are somewhat controversial. Not all the examples I listed are puffery--many of them are just not written in an objective, neutral tone. I agree that the "Research" & the "Implications and Influence" sections need a lot of work. Also, the sub-section on "High Price" needs work too. If you can't find secondary sources covering his research papers, feel free to put them into the Bibliography section. We really shouldn't be summarizing primary sources ourselves. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think all of the puffery and tone issues have been cleaned up -- after giving the article another read, I'll remove those tags. There's still a fair bit of work to do to arrive at a reasonably representative article. I've reorganized the sections and moved around content into a more readable format for the content that's there, which will hopefully guide other editors' contributions. Fortunately, there seems to be enough information on Hart readily available from acceptably reliable sources (eg: NYT and other news media), to improve the citations on existing content, and to add missing basic information (like a more complete summary of his career/research). I'll continue to work on it as well. --Tsavage (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you've done really good work so far. I still see some major issues in the first three paragraphs of the Public Debate section. Also, the summary on High Price still needs work too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you continue to see major issues (that warrant tagging the entire article), please point them out here, or address with inline tags, or at least, section tags. Or do some editing. :)


 * FYI: I'm wary of article tags. They're often years old, and when there's been substantial editing since, they're misleading. Also, when article tags aren't supported on the Talk page, it can be difficult to see the problem, and may require digging around in the page history and guessing -- readers/editors ready to improve, especially new ones, may not be willing to or know how to do detective work to see why an article tag was placed. Since your tags are current, I contacted you, and you helpfully replied. Please continue! --Tsavage (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! The article is on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on it, and I'll plug away at incremental improvement. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)