Changes

::::Excellent points, CPalmer.  A member of the clergy did attend our trip, and he mentioned it repeatedly to his entire congregration - perhaps a thousand people.  Adults who are employed at companies had to obtain a day off, and that required telling everyone who might look for them at work that day, in addition to family members and friends.  And so on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 24 January 2012 (EST)

::::Excellent points, CPalmer.  A member of the clergy did attend our trip, and he mentioned it repeatedly to his entire congregration - perhaps a thousand people.  Adults who are employed at companies had to obtain a day off, and that required telling everyone who might look for them at work that day, in addition to family members and friends.  And so on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 24 January 2012 (EST)

::::::In order to make the article more informative and convincing more concrete examples should be given instead and there is an overemphasis on quantification as there is no solid research being referenced.  I think the more concrete you make things, the more convincing it will be. Speculation absent of solid research makes the article less convincing. Here is an example from 2010: "Kristan Hawkins, the head of Students for Life of America, is one of the pro-life advocates featured in the video. Our goal is to influence as many pro-lifers as possible to come to Washington on Friday, January 22nd and say ‘No Abortion in Health Care’ and then march up to the Capitol to meet with their elected representatives," she told LifeNews.com today."[http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/15/nat-5883/] You could then cite someone talking to their representative. I also think the article should simply declare that the March for Life has an influence significantly beyond the 400,000 people who attend because the march attendees share their march experience and pro-life information with family and friends plus it spurs additional activism in people. You could also mention that clergy members who attend share their march experience and pro-life sermons after the events. Various examples could be given of actual people. I realize that some people love to quantify, particularly people with education and backgrounds in science and engineering, but I just think that quantifying absent of solid research opens the article to needless criticism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:32, 24 January 2012 (EST)

::::::In order to make the article more informative and convincing more concrete examples should be given instead and there is an overemphasis on quantification as there is no solid research being referenced.  I think the more concrete you make things, the more convincing it will be. Speculation absent of solid research makes the article less convincing. Here is an example from 2010: "Kristan Hawkins, the head of Students for Life of America, is one of the pro-life advocates featured in the video. Our goal is to influence as many pro-lifers as possible to come to Washington on Friday, January 22nd and say ‘No Abortion in Health Care’ and then march up to the Capitol to meet with their elected representatives," she told LifeNews.com today."[http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/15/nat-5883/] You could then cite someone talking to their representative. I also think the article should simply declare that the March for Life has an influence significantly beyond the 400,000 people who attend because the march attendees share their march experience and pro-life information with family and friends plus it spurs additional activism in people. In addition, I don't think it would be that hard to find someone saying something to this effect if you do a little digging. Finding such a quote would make the article more encyclopedic. You could also mention that clergy members who attend share their march experience and pro-life sermons after the events. Various examples could be given of actual clergy. I realize that some people love to quantify, particularly people with education and backgrounds in science and engineering, but I just think that quantifying absent of solid research opens the article to needless criticism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:32, 24 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::If people want to criticise, they will find something do criticise. Let them! There is no harm in providing a sensible estimate if it can be defended, and seeing a number in the millions for reach growing out of a six-figure attendance is more powerful than just saying "significantly more".

:::::::::If people want to criticise, they will find something do criticise. Let them! There is no harm in providing a sensible estimate if it can be defended, and seeing a number in the millions for reach growing out of a six-figure attendance is more powerful than just saying "significantly more".

:::::::::The only thing I would say is that we need to bear in mind that there will be some overlap. A clergyman might have a congregation of 1000, but if several members of that congregation also go on the march, a proportion of their 20 people will already be counted in that 1000. So maybe 20 is better than the 40 I suggested above.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:42, 24 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The only thing I would say is that we need to bear in mind that there will be some overlap. A clergyman might have a congregation of 1000, but if several members of that congregation also go on the march, a proportion of their 20 people will already be counted in that 1000. So maybe 20 is better than the 40 I suggested above.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:42, 24 January 2012 (EST)