Talk:Loving Hut

Deletion

There seems to be no evidence of this subject's notability, and the article appears to be spam. I suggest deletion. Rumiton (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This deletion was inappropriate. Fast-growing 120-location chain is clearly notable for size, growth, and unusual vegan focus. Article was a legitimate stub for this growing chain, and a legitimate member of the chain category. There are many other articles for restaurant chains with fewer, or similar numbers of locations, for example Johnny Rockets (only 17 locations), Trader Vic's (25 locations), Fosters Freeze (92 locations), Ruby's Diner (48 locations), Fatburger (96 locations), Benihana (63 locations per their website); even Hard Rock Cafe is only 150 locations. Rep07 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

the article was an attempt to promote an enterprise directly associated with Ching Hai, regardless of the business structure used. It is covered quite clearly in the Ching hai article. Efficacious (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

?? The article as of the time you destroyed it was a *stub*--all of four sentences, all of them simple statements of fact, with refs. A base for future expansion, like all other stubs. Someone had added some arguably redundant external links, but those could simply have been trimmed. There was nothing in the text that qualified as "promotional", that's simply untrue. Again, a legitimate stub for a food chain that's notable in itself, and has an appropriate standalone existence within the context of the food and drink projects and various related categories, has been replaced by a single sentence within a bio of its founder. Like deleting Chez Panisse in favor of a brief mention in Alice Waters. This is taking things in the wrong direction. I believe this page should be restored. Rep07 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Restore. MaynardClark (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

POV

At present the article is just an advertisement. But I haven;t (yet) listed it for deletion because the WaPo and especially the Vice article indicate there may actually be something worth saying. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Then HOW do the critics think the article ought to be written? It's a chain, like a B-Corp, that has a real connection to a values-based organization. Any international company with 120 locations worldwide deserves an article outside the Ching Hai article. MaynardClark (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What is this?

Lead paragraph: "Loving Hut is a vegan restaurant group where each restaurant is operated and owned independently. It was founded and inspired by Ching Hai, whose followers call her "Supreme Master"."

"Group", "independent", "followers", "Supreme Master"? This doesn't sound like a corporation with branches, nor a franchise relationship. It sounds like a cult. What is it?

Even the lovinghut.com/about page writes "Each Loving Hut is individually owned, with the autonomy to choose its own menu." The website doesn't appear very "corporate professional". There seems no content to indicate how you "join" the Loving Hut family or use the name.

All the citations are either primary sourced or are covering individual restaurants, not "Loving Hut" as an organization.

— Normal Op (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They surely exist and operate internationally. They have business operating at each site, and details can be researched, eh? MaynardClark (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Move content to Ching Hai article

The more I research Ching Hai and Loving Hut, the more I'm convinced this article content needs to go into the Ching Hai article. (Maybe provide a redirect from "Loving Hut" to "Ching Hai#Loving Hut" section.) I am still convinced that this subject on its own is not-notable. One of the major clues comes from this about-us page (https://lovinghut.us/about-us/), where there is this content:

Q: How is Supreme Master Ching Hai involved?
A: Supreme Master Ching Hai is the innovator for Loving Hut vegan concept. She wants to help the world with a more compassionate and noble way of living by providing easy access to great vegan food all over the world.
Q: How do I start my own Loving Hut?
A: At the present, we do not offer the franchise to new operator

That is the FIRST time I've encountered the word "franchise" for this topic. Also, the employment application https://lovinghut.us/career/

ARE YOU VEGAN / VEGETARIAN?
NO
YES - VEGAN
YES - VEGETARIAN
IF YES, HOW LONG?

This tells me that this is NOT a franchise business open to any business person, but is ONLY available to those who ascribe to the teachings/doctrine of Ching Hai and/or her group. As such, the subject of "Loving Hut" is not separable from Ching Hai. There isn't going to be any significant media coverage of "Loving Hut" as a group/franchise/chain, because Ching Hai isn't advertising this to just any old business person or corporation. Only the insiders can have one. You will only see "restaurant reviews" of individual local LHs, and that is not the same as the entire group (especially since each one is independently owned and there is no "corporate").

Another clue is the undercurrents in the language in this article discussing a group that "jettisoned" Loving Hut and reopened a similar non-LH restaurant at a "new location less than a mile south" — also "no affiliation", "I want to make that clear", and "they're very sensitive about that". Anyone who has had any dealings with similar "closely held doctrinal groups" knows exactly what this means.

— Normal Op (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That is how you reframe the conversation? But it is not inherently problematic for the articles about a restaurant chain? MaynardClark (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Restoring after vandalism

@MaynardClark: You cannot just go destroy another editor's work without stating a reason. Your version introduced numerous errors. I tried to fix them, as did another editor, and I finally just decided to revert to the last good version.

• You inappropriately changed the citation from the international/corporate About page to the USA one (LovingHut websites).
• You used a non-review about a single LH location as if it covered the int'l topic; it does not. See WP:PRODUCTREV for the Wikipedia policy about what a good restaurant review should look like. And here is a good thorough review as an example.
• You queried "Where is evidence that MOST Loving Hut restaurants broadcast the Supreme Master TV channel in their dining areas?" in an edit summary without reading the two citations which clearly state: (1) "I later learned this was Supreme Master TV, the channel owned by Ching Hai, which broadcasts in most Loving Huts and on 71 cable and IPTV networks, according to its website," and (2) "The company also produces content for Supreme Master Television, which is usually played on large screens at Loving Hut locations".
• You may not like the citations mentioning the cult angle, but they are numerous. In fact, there's more news coverage about LH's cult angle than there is about how lovely or delicious their restaurants are, and the cult-angle coverage is more in depth than the restaurant reviews I found online. Therefore, per WP:DUE the cult-angle should be covered.
• If there is a particular notable individual restaurant, then go ahead and create a section for it. But the article's focus is the overall name and the organization (the chain or franchise or business model or whatever you want to call it).

You've made it quite clear on your User page (and on your alt account User:Vegetarian, which you previously acknowledged) that you are a vegetarian, a vegan, and an advocate for both (quite extensively on a professional basis, apparently). Perhaps you need to stay away from editing vegan/vegetarian articles per WP:COI, and just submit your edit requests on Talk pages.

— Normal Op (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You say that I did all that. DID I do all that? Should meateaters refrain from editing all pages about nonvegetarians? or vegetarians, for that matter, because of their inherent WP:COI? I think so? Hey?

Since when is a question on a talk page 'vandalism'? Maybe pages need semi-protection? MaynardClark (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was on the article page, not the talk page and I have every right to fix what you break, especially when your edits are disruptive. Read WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ADVOCATE, and WP:COI. Normal Op (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not the most recent person to work on it (before you edited), and I merely added a to the claim (with a note in the 'reason' line). MaynardClark (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Merely? Then your finger must have slipped for that second edit. Here it is: [1]. You know, you can see this information yourself through the "View history" link at the top of every article's page. Read Help:Page history for instructions on how to do that. Normal Op (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A few articles

Just putting these here.

• Australia: https://culteducation.com/group/1251-suma-ching-hai/30538-cult-leader-behind-world-s-fastest-growing-vegan-restaurant-chain.html
• Czech Republic: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/vegan-chain-might-cult-173156426.html
• California: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwkaz9/the-restaurant-chain-owned-by-a-cult
• Germany: https://culteducation.com/group/1251-suma-ching-hai/34343-vegan-restaurants-run-by-cult-leader-who-speaks-to-god-2.html

Normal Op (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Please remove that Phoenix times article. Supreme Master Ching Hai has received many awards for humanitarian work. Two American presidents have written their thanks to her as well as many other world leaders. The association is legitimate. And loving hut exists primarily to promote a vegan diet 49.196.35.72 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@49.196.35.72: Hi there, please provide references to support the claims that you have made above. Thanks. Eliyr (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@49.196.35.72: Please reply here in this conversion thread, instead of on my talk page, so that other users can also participate in the discussion. Eliyr (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Phoenix New Times is a reliable source and should stay as a reference in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)