Talk:The Chief Scout's Advance Party Report

Size of the Report

What was the original size of the Report? In the article we read that it "was 20,000 words long. This was reduced to 50,000 words". How can 20,000 words be "reduced" to 50,000 words? --ElfQrin (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, that was clearly a typo. Now corrected to 200,000 words. DiverScout (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo request?

Bit confused about what could be added? A photo of the cover of the book? If someone has any ideas I'm happy to try to sort something. DiverScout (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Added cover scan. DiverScout (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative outcomes?

I have always understood that the Scout Association numbers increased substantially in the decade following the implementation of the Report. The "Outcomes" section focusses only on the losses in the senior sections post 1967 and uses as a reference a document produced by a leading member of the British Boy Scouts and British Girl Scouts Association, who are not entirely impartial on this subject. Can anyone lay their hands on any hard data? Anyway, Senior Scouts and Rovers (15-23 year olds) are not directly comparable to Venture Scouts (16-20). Alansplodge (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are positive outcomes relating directly to APR they can certainly be added. Trouble is that I could not find any reliable third-party sources for those. I'll have another look as I believe that Cub members continued to grow after APR, but I'm not sure if APR affected growth rates that much in the younger sections. Of course, as APR was intended to address falling numbers in the older sections, so this could be argued as an own-goal in itself. The Venture section driectly replaced Seniors and Rovers, so the comparison is valid. Venture numbers jumped after girls were allowed to join (not part of APR) but never reached the levels of the pre-APR sections, and SA numbers in general increased greatly after Beavers started (directly against the recommendations of APR). DiverScout (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it further. My recollection is that SA numbers peaked in the late 1970s, before the introduction of Beaver Scouts and with girls in Venture Scouting numbering only a few thousand. For a proper comparison of older members, all the 15 year-olds that were retained in Scout Troops would have to be factored-in, as well as 20-23 y.o. members who were part of Service Teams or who had taken out Warrants or become Instructors. Converting Rovers into Scouters was an aim of the APR but I agree that that part of the exercise was counter-productive. Citations needed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not impressed by the fact that, despite this conversation, you have simply deleted the facts that you dislike as "negative" and replaced them with your positive ones. That is no better than it was before. The referenced failures should not have been deleted and I intend to restore them. DiverScout (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) <-- Looking back this looks a lot harsher worded than sentiments meant. Apologies for tone. New edit now carries both opinions. DiverScout (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies from me too - I intended to write you an explanatory note, but was interrupted. The article as stands is acceptable to me, but could I reinstate the "Implementation" section? It seems to me to be a matter of referenced fact rather than conjecture. It would help anyone researching uniform changes etc. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'd not intended to touch that bit. I've put it back myself. DiverScout (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and a merry Christmas to you. Alansplodge (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Chief Scouts' Advance Party Report. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/hq/pri/sm-2001-02.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)