Talk:Livestrong Foundation

Charity Navigator
The charitynavigator.org link at the end looks to be stale. The link, on 2016-Jan-10 is to orgid 13379 vs 6570.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13379

I'm reluctant to just edit it, since the link in charity navigator is obviously not stable/permanent.

LS Oakley's
Oakley has recently been making special edition LS sunglasses. But while Oakley is a pretty major company to collaborate with, I'm not sure if the programs worth noting because, where I live, about 1 in 20 random people on any day will have Oakes on, and I have yet to see a pair of these. I'd buy them but they're in the neighborhood of 200 and I'm used to getting mine for, well, all I should say is less, from the military site which doesn't have the LS ones.

LAF vs. LIVESTRONG
This year, the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) has been referring to itself as LIVESTRONG. Yet all titles appear to still be under the name 'LAF'. I think we need to capture this somehow - especially since many know the organization first and foremost as LIVESTRONG. I read that in one of the e-mails I recieved. I'm searching for reproducible documentation on the web...but if anyone has anything of the sort, please include it or discuss below. Coplan (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think reffering to it as Livestrong is more widespread now. 69.146.33.239 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Media Additions to Events Section
There are two documentaries mentioned in the "events" category. I believe they warrant a new section of this page or a new category. They are not, themselves, an event. Infamouse (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section?
This is probably needed, given quotes such as this:"'Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin"Hairhorn (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that if you type any health terms into google, the search results are likely to contain links to livestrong.com articles written by non-experts posing as expert medical advice. It's basically a den of quackery. Example: http://www.livestrong.com/homeopathy Danregan (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To rename the article LIVESTRONG

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to "Livestrong Foundation" by User:Fitoschido 11:40, 15 November 2012. DrKiernan (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong Foundation → LIVESTRONG – Now that Lance Armstrong has stepped down, and since the organization is emphasizing the name LIVESTRONG as a way of distancing itself from him, it is high time Wikipedia renamed the article as LIVESTRONG. Lance Armstrong Foundation can remain but as a redirect page. Rerelisted Andrewa (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have to be LiveStrong or Livestrong per Manual of Style/Capital letters.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest Livestrong, without any unusual capitalization, as that's what most media organizations use: see, for example, this New York Times article and this CNN article. Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose MOS:CAPS & MOS:TM -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing based on the capitalization or are you also against moving the article in general and keeping it at Lance Armstrong Foundation? I ask because the article could also be moved to Livestrong or LiveStrong meaning that neither WP:CAPS or WP:MOSTM would be violated.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well either way I think we can all agree that LIVESTRONG should not be used.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Livestrong Livestrong Foundation per MOS:TM, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, with Foundation in the title to naturally disambiguate from the wristband. Move Livestrong to Livestrong (disambiguation). Redirect Livestrong and LIVESTRONG to Livestrong Foundation with a WP:hatnote there for Livestrong wristband and Livestrong Sporting Park. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Livestrong erasing existing disambiguation page - those two items aren't disambiguations of the term "Livestrong" and belong in the article see also section. [Also, can someone please look at VOILÀ Hotel Rewards per guidelines above.] In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with all of this but there's a more serious issue here, see below. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose but relisting. Yes caps is an issue bit there's a more serious one. However much we might support this organisation and their wish to now distance themselves from their founder, this is not the place to promote either cause, see also official names. Is there evidence of the change of name being adopted by the media, and/or other sources? If so then let's have it. If not then the move request is at least premature. Andrewa (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The timing of this move request in relation to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency findings is unfortunate, however I would have supported the move a long time ago as the yellow wristbands have been around for years. It's not like they just invented a new catchy trade name. To be clear on this the Infobox Non-profit name parameter should remain unchanged and the article's lead sentence should start with the official name as well.  I would apply Naming conventions (companies) though it could be made more clear if there are any special considerations in how the convention applies to nonprofits:
 * Whenever possible, common usage is preferred (such as Livestrong Foundation for Lance Armstrong Foundation)—Livestrong Foundation rather than simply Livestrong provides natural disambiguation from the Livestrong wristband
 * Regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should include the full legal name of the company: The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), doing business as the Livestrong Foundation, is...
 * So, we're not advocating removal of Lance's name from the article. It will still be there, in boldface type. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Example media in support –
 * Lance Armstrong Livestrong Foundation Will Survive, Experts Say – "...the question remains: What will happen to the Livestrong Foundation?" The Huffington Post, 10/19/2012
 * Livestrong surges; Armstrong drops Tour wins on Twitter – use of Livestrong in article title. USA Today, October 23. 2012
 * Can Livestrong Live Without Lance? – ...the question for Livestrong is whether it can succeed without him. Today, Livestrong is a $46.8 million enterprise... Bloomberg Businessweek, October 24, 2012
 * The Future of the Livestrong Foundation – ESPN.com, October 26, 2012
 * I've modified my opinion (above) to recommend including Foundation in the title. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nothing about livestrong.com?
I'm unclear what the relationship is between livestrong.org and livestrong.com (a content-mill website from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_Media, the same company behind eHow and other sites). It seems worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danregan (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

History - Mission
"The Livestrong Foundation states that its mission is 'to inspire and empower' cancer survivors and their families.[2]"

In fact, it doesn't. The term 'mission' appears nowhere in the reference given. Instead, on the Livestrong Foundation home page, one finds the following:

"Our Approach" "Explore how we are creating a relevant, vibrant cancer movement based on evidence and by investing in strategic solutions."

"Our Actions" "We find new ways to raise awareness, increase outreach and facilitate collaboration in an effort to improve the cancer experience."

"Who We Are" "We inspire and empower people affected by cancer. We believe that unity is strength, knowledge is power and attitude is everything."

Any one of these stated goals could be taken to be the so-called 'mission' of the Livestrong Foundation. Currently, therefore, the assertion in the Wiki article that the Foundation's "mission is 'to inspire and empower' cancer survivors and their families" is no more than the POV of the previous editor.124.186.221.219 (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Notorious Doper
Is LA a notorious doper? I say yes on both counts. Here are some references easily found on Google:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-07/news/sns-mct-opinion-doper-lance-armstrong-stripped...-20120907_1_usada-international-sport-and-attempt-tour-de-france-titles

http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1280646--lance-armstrong-to-be-burned-in-effigy-in-english-town

Please see the history of the article for details. If no editor has anything to say about this, I'll add the moniker again. Thanks!117.197.59.155 (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:SOAPBOX. Don't add it again. It will be reverted.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for refraining from foul language. However, It is no longer POV of a single person as it has been endorsed by USADA and International Cyclists Union. They, and LA's companions and contemporaries, are far better qualified than us to judge him, and they say he is a doper. As for notoriety, he has certainly achieved enough to last more than a lifetime. He's not Jack the Ripper, no; but as a sportsperson, and an iconic one at that, this is far more notorious than say if a high-school sprinter gets caught. Again, its not just me, its all over the mainstream media. The dubious title of more notorious than LA goes to his `coach' Ferrari. Why do you think the Foundation is trying to distance itself from him? So, WP:NPOV is not applicable here. It is not POV if that's the view of the competent authorities (which in this case it is). I'm not sure why you think WP:POINT and/or WP:SOAPBOX even apply here, as I'm trying my best to avoid any disruption (as opposed to edit-warring like you), nor am I promoting my own individual self, advertising, or opinion. It's not even my opinion. Please offer a considered reply, possibly one with more substance than a set of rules which may not apply and authoritative challenges which I'll not respond to anyway. Thanks! 117.197.48.60 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let me put it another way so your mind can understand it. Try putting that term into the main Lance Armstrong article in the opening paragraph. Good luck!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you yourself even read that first paragraph? That article is locked for some reason (hmm...), and I'm sure you're not the Keeper of the Flame for it :-), but it clearly states that he is 1)disgraced, 2)user and distributor of performance-enhancing drugs (aka doper), 3)banned from cycling for life for that, and 4)stripped of previous major awards. Should I include as much into this article? I thought notorious doper succinctly summarised the gory details, but I'm willing to change to more appropriate wording. Any suggestions? 117.197.48.60 (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Try asking for the edit to be made via the talkpage of Armstrong's article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the topic. The main article already expresses (in great detail) LA's fraud and disgrace. I intend to achieve something similar in this article that currently completely omits any mention of the scandalous nature of LA's actions. I only asked for suggestions on suitable wording instead of notorious doper. If that is too much to ask of you, please move aside. I'll think of some different wording myself and put it in. Thank you for your consideration. 117.197.48.60 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about the organization, not the man. Including that in the intro would be WP:UNDUE at best. There is already a section in the article that deals with the issue, and that's as far as we need it to go. The foundation has worked hard to minimize its ties to Armstrong, and we are not here to pour salt on their wounds, nor imply that they were somehow involved in his doping shenanigans. You seem to be quite adamant about this - I suggest you stop editing this article and all others related to the topic in general, since you are obviously not able to maintain a neutral point of view. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Liestrong vandalism
Please, don't.--46.24.80.82 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

doping in lead
This article is about the Livestrong foundation not Lance Armstrong himself. The fact that he was stripped of his wins does not belong in the lead here. The info while true is not about the foundation just the founder. GB fan 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your courteous response. As the main article already describes the facts surrounding the issue, it is unnecessary to repeat that in the body. I've merely added a 'see below' marker for the reader to understand the circumstances of Mr. Armstrong's "retirement". 117.197.62.128 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "see below" does not belong either, it is below if anyone is interested and also in the 1st paragraph of the linked article about lance Armstrong. Please get consensus before adding this to the lead.  GB fan 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

POV Line
In the section Armstrong doping scandal and rebranding is the sentence, "This decision and the strategy it adopted was primarily driven by the foundation’s own strong sense of itself and the importance of the story it needed to tell," which represents the organization's POV rather than a neutral one. How could the sentence be neutralized?

Duxwing (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livestrong Foundation. 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/20130128142357/http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all to http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
In the section Subsequent developments, keep the paragraph "In 2023, Lee resigned after 17 years.[19] Suzanne Stone was subsequently appointed as President.[20]" as the last paragraph. Because this event happened last in the chronology. 2402:8100:24EF:A07A:F41D:79F3:91BD:9D57 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)