Talk:List of area seventies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Changes just made

I just made numerous changes to this list based upon conventions and facts verifiable in the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac pp. 60-62 and the May 2008 Ensign pp. 4-7, 130-131. While going through this page, I found several errors based on listings in these sources, and I have fixed these errors. Following the list of changes I have made, I will ask about two questions I had based on what I observed in going through this list. That said, first, here's the list of changes I made and why:

Removed double listing for Norbert K. Ounleu from 3rd Quorum

Moved Jorge M. Alvarado—he is in 6th Quorum, not 4th

Removed double listing for David Cabrera from 4th Quorum

Switched positions of “Manuel Gonzalez” and “Julio C. Gonzalez”—list should be alphabetical

Moved Miguel A. Lee–he is in 6th Quorum, not 4th

Moved Ysrael A. Tolentino—he is in 6th Quorum, not 4th

Capitalized “M” in listing for “LaMont W. Moon” in 5th Quorum

Changed last name in 5th Quorum—should be “Tryhall” NOT “Trythall”

Added Jorge M. Alvarado to 6th Quorum

Added Miguel A. Lee to 6th Quorum

Added W. T. David Murray to 6th Quorum

Moved T. La Mar Sleight down to the “S’s”—the list is alphabetical

Added Ysrael A. Tolentino to 6th Quorum

Switched positions of “Climato C. A. de Almeida” and “Ruben V. Alliaud”—list should be alphabetical.

Moved Fernando J. D. Araujo up—list should be alphabetical

Moved Carlos A. C. Villanova down—list should be alphabetical

Moved Ernesto A. Da Silva up—list should be alphabetical

Moved Ronaldo da Costa—list should be alphabetical

Moved Victor Kah Keng Chen up—list should be alphabetical

Now, the two questions.

First of all, what conventional rules are we following as far as listing the names? I only altered what I did because it seems to me an initial shouldn't have impact on an alphabetical listing, or because of what I understand on a limited basis about Spanish. Perhaps someone could clarify what is proper as far as Spanish conventional rules for listing the last name. This entails things like: Do initials count in determining where a person is placed on an alphabetical list? Take for example Carlos A. C. Villanova. Would his last name be considered "C. Villanova" or simply "Villanova"? Also, what impact, if any, does Da, da, De, or de have on an alphabetical list? It seems to me that if it stands alone, it would be under the first capital letter in the last name, hence "Climato C. A. de Almeida" should technically be under "A". On the other hand, if the last name is interrupted by a "de" then I'd imagine you'd list it under the first letter of the first part of the last name. In other words, "Alfredo Heliton de Lemos" goes under "H" because of the last name interrupted by a "de". This is the way it seems to me. Any English feedback from Spanish speakers?

Next, where is the verification for giving the first name of "Joshua" to the area seventy known only in official Church listings (as cited above) as "Subandriyo"? I would be fine leaving this as is if the "Joshua" part, which I've never seen until this list, could be verified. In every reference I was able to dig up, he is merely referred to as "Subandriyo," or in the case of being listed with official title, "Elder Subandriyo". So, can the first name of "Joshua" be verified for him?

I hope these questions and the changes I made haven't made me seem too pesky. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes - thanks for catching them. I was able to verify all of them except Tolentino - who is still listed in the 4th quorum in the directory of organizations and leaders (CDOL) - but I think we should list him in the 6th since that is in a verifiable source.

As to your comments. I don't think that Da, da, DE should be included as part of the last name, but I'm not sure - sources I have seen list them both ways - even in the same list though not including them seems a more prevalent. In the cdol, the last names are listed as: "Villanova", "Da Silva", "Costa", and "Almeida"

Joshua is the name used when he spoke at a BYU-Hawaii devotional, and he is also referred that way in a blog report of a Malaysia district conference, as well as in the cdol. --Trödel 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the Caribbean area is now part of the 4th quorum of seventy, the latest member Tolentino is listed as a member of the 4th quorum. The 6th quorum of seventy includes US and Canada seventy who report directly to a member of the presidency of the seventy rather than to an Area Presidency. Although the Caribbean area was part of the North America Southeast area, it was reinstated as a separate area in January 2006. It makes more logical sense to me that seventy in the Caribbean area would be part of the 4th since all seventy in that quorum are in areas that have an area presidency, and if they are part of the 6th they would be the only seventy in that quorum that report to an area presidency instead of a president of the seventy. --Trödel 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "Church Directory of Organization and Leaders" that you are obtaining information from? Unless it is put out or officially endorsed by the Church, I wouldn't necessarily trust it. I found what might be it, but it requires some sort of "special access" and I'm not sure we could use that as a source. In the meantime, we do have the 2008 Church Almanac, which is endorsed by the Church and put out by the Deseret Morning News, a subsidiary news organization of the LDS Church. And that clearly states on pg. 61 that the Caribbean Area is part of the 6th Quorum. Since the other website, if that indeed is it, requires special authorization not available in the public domain, it may be best to use those resources that are in the public domain rather than those that are password protected, unless of course this is not what you're referring to.

Just looked at the Almanac again. It appears that when the Da or De is capitalized, the last name is listed under "D." However, when the "da" or "de" is lowercase, then the last name is listed under the first capital letter after the "de," with the exception of "Alfredo Heliton de Lemos," which is listed under "H" because it's a compound last name.

Since verification has been provided, and the sources are verifiable, I now have no problems with this list giving Subandriyo's first name as "Joshua".

What quorum a member is in has no bearing on who they report to. In general, the area seventies in the United States and Canada are reporting to the Presidency of the Seventy, who all have responsibility for all areas in the US and Canada, even though they are each individually responsible for certain areas. I have no idea what you mean by "The Caribbean Area was reinstated as a separate area in January 2006." The official source for the creation of the Caribbean Area is the August 2006 Ensign pp. 74-75. That source states: "The First Presidency has announced changes in assignments for area leadership, effective beginning August 15, 2006...The First Presidency has also announced the formation of a new area, the Caribbean Area, formed from what was part of the North America Southeast Area." Notice that it says the area was formed from what WAS part of the North America South Area. It doesn't say or imply anywhere that the area itself is considered to be bound by the same rules governing who area seventies in the US and Canada report to. I now draw your attention to the previously referred to listing in the Church Almanac. The aforementioned pg. 61 states: "Area Seventies residing in...[the] Caribbean [Area] make up the 6th Quorum of the Seventy."

You will notice by looking at the "Area Seventies" pages in the Church Almanac that some area seventies in the US and Canada are listed under the 5th Quorum of the Seventy, and some are listed under the 6th Quorum of the Seventy. The only factor that has any bearing on who area seventies report to is the area they are serving in. The Caribbean Area Seventies serve in the 6th quorum, but report to an Area Presidency rather than the Presidency of the Seventy.

I realize you were in no way trying to be argumentative, and I hope you don't take my comments as such. It appears we both were saying the same thing in different ways. I apologize for my longwindedness and any confusion it may have caused. At the end of the day, my feeling is that we need to use sources in the public domain that are not password protected and that can be easily verified and referred to. For that reason, unless the 2009 Church Almanac lists the Caribbean Area under the 4th Quorum of the Seventy, it's my opinion that we ought to leave the Caribbean Area Seventies in the 6th Quorum since that is what the latest verifiable and easily accessed source says. Of course, if the 2009 Church Almanac does list the Caribbean Area as part of the 4th Quorum of the Seventy, then the only downside of that is that I will look stupid, which happens quite often. Oh, the intricacies of human error! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is the official directory published by the church and password protected. It is available on CD-ROM and on the internet. I agree with your concerns about including it as a source (but not from a limited access point of view - limited availability sources are allowed under Wikipedia's verifiability standard. But because I don't understand how it is updated and I have found inconsistencies before - from what I understand updates are initiated by changes and not systematically monitored for changes - but I don't know if there are other ways that it is updated.

So - while I agree that we should continue to list the Alverado and Lee in the 6th quorum for now, I do think we should consider whether to list Tolentino under the 6th or 4th quorum since we have no verifiable source for the quorum only that he is an area seventy. BTW, Alvarado and Lee are listed in the cdol on the Area Seventy page as being in the 4th quorum, but if you look at the details of Alverado and Lee they state they are members of the 6th quorum, an inconsistency. If it were consistent, I would support listing them under the 4th quorum only, regardless of the cdol's limited availability as a source.

The reason I used the word "reinstated" is that a Caribbean Area was formed in April 1983 from the Orlando Florida Area. Both areas were then discontinued with the creation of the North America Southeast Area in October 1984 (which was also about the time that Area Presidencies were first created and the limited service, 3-5 years originally, seventy were called). However, the announcements in 2006 all said "created" or "new" area so I should have not confused the issue. --Trödel 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When I attempt to access this site, it says that I need a "Key letter," whatever that means. The inconsistencies don't surprise me. I myself have in the past found two historical errors in the Church Almanac that have since been fixed in the 2008 edition, so that illustrates how current, accurate information may not be available.

As far as Tolentino goes, I will tell you this much. I'm what's referred to as geographically challenged. I'm only half-kidding when I say that I earned my Orienteering Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts on accident, and it wasn't the usual sort of accident either! LOL. But I do have a limited semi-annual interest in geography that is confined mainly to looking up where the Area Seventies are from and making notation of that as necessary. This news release states that Tolentino is from the Dominican Republic. I looked it up on a map and found that this was directly in the region known as the Caribbean Area of the Church. Since I knew from the Church Almanac that the Caribbean Area is in the 6th Quorum, and since Tolentino resides in the Caribbean Area, it logically follows that he must be in the 6th Quorum.

As far as the Caribbean Area being "reinstated," where did you get that information from? I don't mean to imply I don't believe you. On the contrary, since Church History facts like that interest me, I'm always blown away when someone tells me something about Church History that I haven't heard about, read about, or seen. I looked through two years of old Ensign magazines attempting to find this most interesting information but came up empty. If you could tell me where to find it, I'd sure appreciate it. I'm always interested in things like this. It's all so fascinating to me.

On another note in relation to the discussion page about General Authorities, I asked a while back whether we ought to include information about the committee assignments that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve currently. It was decided that we ought to, provided that information could be found in the public domain in a verifiable source. Obviously something password protected cannot be a public domain verifiable source. But my question for you is, by any chance, does that website list those assignments? Part of Church History entails what is currently happening with Church History, so I would be intrigued to find out what, if anything, this site says about that. Perhaps I can get the "Key letter" and find out for myself. In the meantime, I'm just curious, and you could post the information about the answer to this question on that talk page.

Thanks for your continued attention to these matters, and sorry if I'm being a pest about all this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem re being a pest - I expected as much - being a pest (asking for sources) is a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia and what Wikipedians should be doing.

Unfortunately committee assignments are not listed. And I have come to agree with you that it is not a verifiable source. --Trödel 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Any particular reason this article uses the "area authorities" name instead of the current "area seventies"? I would think it would be best to use the current terminology. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change from "area seventy" to "area seventies", since the plural of "seventy" is "seventies" and we're talking about more than one in the title. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please update all the links to avoid the redirect --Trödel 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This one was missed but I updated it today --Trödel 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About that: I fail to find any official explanation of the change in terminology. Anyone know where that can be found? Just curious. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it can be assumed that they added the "seventy" to the name when they decided to ordain these men as seventies. Why they changed from "area authority seventy" to "area seventy" — I too am unaware of any reason being given for this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Manual Table of Contents and redundancies

I think the idea of the Manual Table of Contents is a great one. This will make each quorum tons easier for the reader to find. However, I noticed that with the heading at the beginning of each table and the fact that every area seventy has what quorum he's in beside his name that there are redundancies. For instance, at the beginning of the listing for Third Quorum Members, there's a bar on top of the table stating that this is the Third Quorum. But then, it goes on to list "Third Quorum" by the names of each member of that quorum. It occurred to me to wonder whether this might make it easier or harder for the reader. And so, I would propose either eliminating the new table heads at the beginning of each quorum and keeping the quorum by each member's name or eliminating the quorum by each member's name and keeping the table headings. I think, however, that I would be more in favor of just keeping the table headings, because that way, it's clear that the members in the Third Quorum are listed in the Third Quorum. Keeping them both seems unnecessarily repetitive, sort of like this post describing the problem is. However, I am open to hearing anyone who disagrees. If I can be shown how it would be profitable for WP purposes to keep both, I'd say let both of them stay. Until that time, I believe I would be more in favor of leaving the table heads but eliminating the other redundancies. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the headings but left in the codes that allow the jump to the different sections - so the manual toc will still work. I like the idea of the the quorum number being on each row because I envision this list being similar to the general authority list at some point, listing the dob and date of calling/sustaining for each area authority. With the sortable headings it would be nice to know which quorum the person is in after sorting it by time served in the calling or age. --Trödel 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Sounds good to me. However, I will be interested to find out how you discover the dates of birth for each area seventy. That information doesn't seem to be widely available, and indeed, the Church only includes current age and place of residence when listing the callings of area seventies. However, if this information COULD be obtained, then it would be very helpful. Nice idea. Good luck with your future research for this table. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing - it would be very difficult to find the birth date - maybe we could just use age to approximate a year of birth and then put the age into the table as "approximate age." --Trödel 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That would work. However, depending on when in the year the birth dates are, it may not be exactly accurate. What might be a better suggestion is to locate the dates of call (more easily obtainable) and use that as another sort factor. That way, it would be clear to the reader when the names are resorted which area seventies were called when, and then, if they wanted specific information about ages, they could go to the sources that talk about their calling information. Of course, that's just another suggestion. I wouldn't be opposed to or in favor of anything particularly until I see how it all works. Good luck with this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Quorum

Interestingly the Caribbean coordinating councils are now listed as reporting to the North America Southeast Area again - so that would mean that the Area Seventy would be in the Sixth Quorum. --Trödel 15:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church News edition for today reports that the new Church Almanac for 2009 is available for use. Accordingly, I would suggest not changing the Quorum "assignments" for these brethren until the changes can be confirmed or disproved by the Almanac, which would have the latest accurate information that's been officially announced. Does that sound all right? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean Area

Let's get something established once and for all. It was agreed a long time ago that the CDOL was not a reputable source for WP purposes because of its' limited access. The only verifiable source I have been able to find has been the most recent Church Almanac. The 2010 edition lists the Caribbean Area Seventies as being in the Fourth Quorum. Accordingly, when I revise the list today, I will be putting the Caribbean Area in the 4th Quorum of the Seventy, where it belongs. If there are any other sources, list them here before changing it back. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No one has ever agreed that the CDOL is not reliable because of limited access. Wikipedia rules make it clear that limited access sources may be used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List needs to be brought up to date.

Because of the recent changes in the Seventy as announced in General Conference, this list is no longer accurate. I would suggest updating it by using the 2010 Church Almanac page on Area Seventies, then updating from there by using President Uchtdorf's talk, which can be found at the link that follows: The Sustaining of Church Officers. The geographical location of those newly called area seventies can be found in the following Church newsroom page: New General Authorities Called, Primary General Presidency reorganized Hope this information helps! Happy editing! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I took my own suggestion. I have a current alphabetical list of area seventies by quorum, and I will be using that, and the sources cited above, to bring the list up-to-date. I would welcome any help. Hopefully, this list can be updated in full before the end of the night. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update taking longer than expected. I have updated the listings for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Quorums. Now just the 6th, 7th, and 8th need to be done. Perhaps tomorrow. For now, I'm signing off.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update finished! With the editing finalized for the 6th, 7th and 8th Quorums, this list is up-to-date as of 4/23/2010. Please post here with any questions you might have. Nearly all the changes can be verified through the sources cited at the beginning of this section. Any questions? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Okay. So I brought the list up-to-date. As far as I know, the information is accurate and is based on the best sources available so far. However, there are errors highlighted in red that I can't fix. To do so is out of my area of WP expertise. Is there someone out there that can take a stab at solving these problems? Help! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks to those users who helped fix the problems on this page. As I mentioned in the topic above, for me to do so myself was out of my WP expertise. This page would not have been successfully brought up-to-date without your help. Thanks again, and keep up the great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Area leadership assignment listing for Manzhos

The list is up-to-date as far as accurate information about who the current area seventies are. However, there is one important fact missing. Elder Alexandr N. Manzhos has been the Second Counselor in the Europe East Area since November 2009. And he will continue to serve in that capacity at least for the next year. See the following sources for verification of this fact: New presidency named for Europe East Area New area leadership assignments: 2010. Manzhos's assignment ought to be listed on this page. If someone could take care of this ASAP, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just took care of it myself. What do you think? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

April 2011 changes.

I am starting this topic to weigh in on when the changes ought to be made for this page. While I agree we can't implemented ALL the changes until they are effective, some of the changes are effective now. I was concerned when I saw that some new Area Seventies sustained during last conference that had been added to the page before the last change were omitted now. I have no problem leaving the outgoing area seventies on this list until May 1, when their release is effective. I suggest we use two documents to bring this page up to date at the appropriate time. The Sustaining of Church Officers New General Authority Callings Announced. Those sustained should be added now. Those released should be deleted May 1, with the exception of those who were released to become General Authorities. In my opinion, these should be omitted now because they cannot be in two quorums at once. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that adding the new ones now makes sense. Also agree we should wait on removing those released until May 1 unless they were sustained to a new quorum. --Trödel 01:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how do we best take care of this? In the changes that were previously made, I noticed that there were some seventies removed that should have remained. It appears to me that our best alternative is to leave the page as is until May 1, when all changes can be effectively made together, using the two sources I cited. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am working on compiling a current alphabetical list of area seventies by quorum. I should have that done later this week or early next week. That list will give us an idea of what needs to be taken out or added, and should make updating this page easier. I'll keep you posted. Unless someone else wants to try updating this list using the two sources I cited, this seems to be the best route. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Completed the list today. Based on what I discovered in doing this list, I present the following changes that will need to be implemented into the WP page. They are as follows:

Changes that need to be made to the Wikipedia Area Seventies page:

3rd Quorum: Hans T. Boom and Patrick M. Boutoille need to be added. Andrew M. Ford needs to be removed. Matti T. Jouttenus needs to be added. Alfred Kyungu needs to be added. Remove the Requina from Faustino Lopez, because that’s how his name appears in the Almanac. J. Michel Paya needs to be removed. Jose L. Reina needs to be added. Eivind Sterri needs to be removed.

4th Quorum: Jose L. Alonso and Nelson L. Altamirano need to be removed. David R. Brown needs to be removed. Winsor Balderrama needs to be added. Vladimiro J. Campero needs to be removed. I. Poloski Cordon needs to be removed. Jorge S. Dominguez needs to be added. Manuel Gonzalez needs to be removed. Lester F. Johnson needs to be added. B. Renato Maldonado needs to be removed. Ismael Mendoza needs to be added. Cesar A. Morales needs to be added. Raymundo Morales needs to be removed. Carlos Solis needs to be added. Juan M. Rodriguez and Jose L. Torres need to be removed. Ysrael A. Tolentino needs to be removed. Ernesto R. Toris, Arnulfo Valenzuela, Ricardo Valladares, Fabian I. Vallejo, and Emer Villalobos need to be added.

5th Quorum: Kent J. Allen and Stephen B. Allen need to be added. D. Fraser Bullock needs to be removed. Donald J. Butler needs to be removed. Carl B. Cook needs to be removed. LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. needs to be removed. Gary L. Crittenden needs to be added. Gary B. Doxey needs to be added. Allen D. Haynie and Douglas F. Higham need to be added. Daniel M. Jones needs to be removed. Donald J. Keyes needs to be removed. Gary B. Porter needs to be added. Jay L. Sitterud needs to be removed. Lynn L. Summerhays needs to be added. Craig B. Terry needs to be added. W. Christopher Waddell and Gary W. Walker need to be removed. Terry L. Wade needs to be added.

6th Quorum: John S. Anderson needs to be removed. R. Randall Bluth needs to be added. J. Devn Cornish needs to be removed. Robert W. Hymas needs to be added. Rulon D. Munns needs to be added. Steven D. Posey needs to be removed. George F. Rhodes Jr. needs to be added.

7th Quorum: Sergio E. Avila needs to be removed. Daniel M. Canoles needs to be removed. Marcelo S. Chappe needs to be added. Heber O. Diaz needs to be removed. Nicolas L. Di Giovanni needs to be added. David G. Fernandes and Hernan D. Ferreira need to be added. Ricardo P. Giménez needs to be added. Domingos S. Linhares needs to be removed. Fernando Maluenda needs to be removed. Esteban G. Resek needs to be added. Gerardo L. Rubio needs to be removed. Remove the “de Lopes” from Norland Souza, because that’s how his name appears in the Almanac. Wenceslad J. Svec needs to be added.

8th Quorum: Ian S. Ardern needs to be removed. Eleazar S. Collado and Jeffrey D. Cummings need to be added. Federico F. Costales needs to be removed. Julio G. Gaviola needs to be removed. Katsumi Kusume’s given and surnames need to be reversed to be correct. Remegio E. Meim needs to be added. Ramon C. Nobleza needs to be added. Hee Kuen Oh needs to be changed to Hee Keun Oh. Abenir G. Pajaro needs to be added. Dirk Smibert needs to be removed. David J. Thompson needs to be added.

Someone else is welcome to implement these changes, but if no one gets to it this week, I'll take care of it. Be sure to post here with questions or comments. Thanks in advance for your help in getting this page updated. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to update this page all at once, so I am doing it piece by piece. I just updated the 3rd Quorum of the Seventy. But I have error tags that I can't get rid of on my own. Help! Thanks for assisting with this. I will get the 4th-8th Quorums updated as time allows. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all the errors except the unrecognized words. Don't know how to fix that. An update to the 4th-8th Quorums will follow as time and circumstances allow. If anyone else can step in and fix these errors or help with the update, that would be more than welcome. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated the 4th Quorum. One concern I have about this update is that Carlos Solis, sustained a year ago, was not added to this page. So I added him. But for some ridiculous reason, this page links the name Carlos Solis to a fictional character in a soap opera. This should not happen. How can we fix it? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated the 5th Quorum today. Ran into no problems there. I also made two minor edits to the 6th Quorum. Gary L. Crittenden, formerly in the 6th Quorum, is now living in the Utah Salt Lake City area. Since I have no exact location for him, I entered the location as simply "Salt Lake City, Utah." I removed his listing from the 6th Quorum since he is no longer there. I also fixed a reference for M. Keith Giddens. The source for his call was listed as "refname=April 2002" when it should have been "refname=April 2010." I will have the 6th-8th Quorums hopefully updated by the end of the week. If anyone wants to help with the update, they are more than welcome. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated the 6th and 7th Quorums today. Ran into a slight problem. Elder Weceslad H. Svec, sustained an area seventy on October 2, 2010, was not included on this list. So I attempted to add him. But I could find no information on his age, location or a source we could cite for his call. Please help find this information if you can. If no one comes up with anything by the time I update this page again, I'll look again. Frustrating! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated the 8th Quorum today. As far as I can tell, this page is now up-to-date. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes just made.

Dear Friends: I was looking at this page in comparison with the latest official information available in the Deseret News 2012 Church Almanac, and I was intrigued to note some discrepancies in this WP page compared to that. To bring the page up to date, the following changes have been made:

3rd Quorum: Remove Milton Camargo. (No longer in Spain.)

5th Quorum: Add Dennis C. Brimhall. (Now living in the Utah South Area, though no specific location is found for him.)

6th Quorum: Remove Dennis C. Brimhall (No longer in Colorado.) Shorten “David Ellsworth LeSueur” to “David E. LeSueur.”

7th Quorum: Add Milton Camargo. (Now living in Brazil, though no specific location is found for him.) Shorten “Daniel Arnoldo Moreno” to “Daniel A. Moreno.”

8th Quorum: Insert Chang Ho Kim and information for him. (Sustained as an area seventy in April 2011, I don't know why he was not included on this list at that time.)

This page is current as of 2/13/2012. Any questions/comments? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

April 2012 changes

Several changes were made in Area Seventies during General Conference this weekend. I will be updating my personal lists of Area Seventies over the next day or so, and within a week, I will be able to update this page. I would welcome any help. I will be using the official list of changes from the newsroom release. To me, that is a better, more official source than what was listed for the changes that have already been made. I look forward to getting this list up-to-date once again. Thanks.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have finished personal updated list of area seventies by quorum. Will be taking time over the next few days to updated this list. Post here with questions, comments, etc. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the 3rd and 4th Quorums. I also thought it would be good to have the exact number of area seventies listed and to include an "as of" date. I put it as May 2012, and have taken the liberty of already removing those who were presented for release during General Conference, though technically their releases won't be effective for another month. So those changes have been made. Updates to the other four quorums are coming at some point within the next several days as time and circumstances allow. Post here with questions/comments/feedback etc. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 5th and 6th Quorums are now updated. The other two will be updated within the next hour or so. Please post here with any feedback. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The 7th and 8th Quorums are now updated. This list is accurate and current as of May 2012. But, as I said before, I made the changes now so we won't have to worry about making them later. And I made it clear in the article that this list is current as of May. Any feedback of any kind? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work on updating all the quorum members! I agree that it's not a concern to remove those to be released. Thanks for your time and efforts!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Colin H. Bricknell

As per this article, Colin H. Bricknell is now Second Counselor in the Africa Southeast Area Presidency. I would enter this information into the article myself, but don't know exactly how to with the new format of the tables. So if someone could fix this ASAP, as this change was effective yesterday, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Just figured it out myself. Comments? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When the assignments for area leadership for August 1, 2013 were announced, I discovered that Bricknell no longer serves in the area presidency. Since it is now past August 1, I have removed the note and the reference. Comments? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 changes.

I spent a good deal of time this weekend updating my personal current list of area seventies. I will use that list to update this page ASAP. In the meantime, if anyone would like to help with the revision, the information I worked from is in this article. I look forward to working with you all to get this page up-to-date. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a great deal of time and more than a little trial and error, but I finally got the 3rd Quorum updated. My goal is to have the other five quorums updated by the end of the day. Thanks to one of the bots for rescuing an orphaned reference. I will keep you posted on my progress. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

4th Quorum updated. Will try to finish the rest by tonight. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

5th Quorum updated. Halfway there! Hope to finish today. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

6th Quorum updated. Two left! Will finish tonight! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

7th Quorum updated. Will edit the last one today! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

8th Quorum updated. The only problem now is that the page is backwards, with the references on the top and the area seventies listed at the bottom of the page. Please help! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the problem. Now the note about Colin Bricknell's area assignment is gone. Tried to reinclude it with no success. Help! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts in updating this. In the midst of your editing of the quorums, I removed the note box and just included Bricknell's area assignment in the footnote. Don't think we need another whole column when that is the only note for the entire 200+ serving at this time. I am going to go and revert back your latest effort to reinstate the box. ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I agree. It doesn't make much sense to have a separate column for a note about one individual area seventy. The footnote looks great. The update was no problem. Keeping track of the currently serving area seventies is all part of my interest in Church History, particularly how it relates to General Conference. Glad I could take the time to get this taken care of. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a list of former area seventies?

It seems kind of a loss to remove people when they are released from this list and then let any mention of them vanish. It would seem to me worthwhile to have a list of former area seventies that gives the years they served. Do we have anything like that at present, or will I have to make it all from scratch if I want to have it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a list, if the consensus wants it, would have to be put together from scratch. Unless of course you would like to go back in the archives of this page and pull the list from there. Such a list could be useful, but it would take a lot of work. What does the consensus say? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Claude R. Gamiette and the placment of the Caribbean Area

It seems that above the last discussion of the Caribbean Area tended toward putting it in the 6th Quorum. However the Deseret News Church Almanc, 2010 Edition, p. 80 clearly places the Caribbean Area in the 4th Quorum. This is also the implication of this [1] April 27, 2013 LDS Church News Article. To make things more confusing Gamiette had been listed in the 3rd Quoru, I think this is because he is from France. Of course he is from France in a way similar to how Joseph Ah Quin is from the United States. OK, those of us who are really odd are still waiting for Ah Quin to be called as an area seventy, but we can hope, right? Ah Quin is most noted in Mormon culture for having played "Moki" in Johnny Lingo, although he is also a noted musician with long ties to BYU Hawaii, a talent which he did not get to use in his playing of the role of Moki. At first I was going to use Naomi Kahoilua, who played Mahana as my example, but since she has lived in Washington state for almost four decades, I decided she would not be a good example. Although the fact that she has a spouse who is a native of the metropole is like Gamiette, since Sister Gamiette was born in France (we learn that from [2] the Feb. 7, 2009 announcment that Gamiette and his wife woulod preside over a mission (from this [3] MArch 7, 2009 article we learn Gamiette was assigned to head the West Indies mission, which is where he lived, which is a fairly rare occurance, although not unprecedented for one mission countires, I think the last three Haitian mission presidents were Haitians called to serve there, although in Tonga they managed to avoid calling a resident most recently by calling a Tongan expatriate in Alaska, along with his Euro-American wife, but I digress). I guess even if Joseph Ah Quinn was called as an Area Seventy it would not cause the confusion that we are dealing with here, and M. Brent Wilson's call (that is Naomi Kahoilua (Wilson)'s husband), if it were to occur would create even less confusion. The Wilson's being in Washington State present no ambiguity, and Hawaii is in the North America West Area so it is assigned with the rest of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• After mentioning wanting Joseph Ah Quin to be an Area Seventy, I learned that Stephen B. Allen is an Area Seventy. He had no connection with Johnny Lingo, but he was the executive producer for "Together Forever" and a lot of other 1980s missionary films. Actually, Allen's career is very similar to that of president Hinckley, first as head of missionary publicity and then as head of the missionary department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Someone might ask why I did not bring up Hugo Martinez from Puerto Rico as a close parrallel to Gamiette from Guadaloupe. The catch is Guadaloupe is a department of France, fully on the same level as Hawaii being a state of the US, while Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, and its citizens do not have representation in congress on votes in the electoral college, so it is more analogous to French Polynesia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you go up to the section on this page called "Caribbean Area," you'll find that this issue was resolved. According to the Deseret News 2013 Almanac, the Caribbean Area is listed as part of the 4th Quorum. That is what the consensus decided to go with. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect links

Ruben Acosta, Daniel W. Jones, the two Lopez links and the Thomson link all go to articles on people other than the ones who are serving as Areas Seventies. I am not sure how to either unlink them or fix the links. It should be done though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a way to unlink them. I believe you type link=no in all the relevant places. But someone with more experience with this list, like Trodel perhaps, could answer your question far better than I can. My advice is to ask him/her on his/her talk page. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is correct - add "|link=no" before the close template symbol "}}" I made that change to the ones identified above. --Trödel 16:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes just made.

I incorporated onto this page those releases and sustainings that were presented in General Conference on Saturday. There were 2 releases and 3 new area seventies to add. I think I have all the information input onto this page properly. Please post here with any feedback you might have. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes made for April 2015.

Hello, all. I know I'm a month late, but I finally began updating this list based on the releases and sustainings for April 2015. The releases were effective as of May 1, so this list will be updated to reflect those serving at that date. 3rd Quorum done! Five more to go! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

4th Quorum changes completed! Four more to go! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

5th and 6th Quorum completed! Two more to go! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

7th Quorum changes completed! On the home stretch! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Jgstokes. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes made for April 2016

Is someone going to add the new area authorities to the list - I'm not sure exactly how to do it https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-area-seventies-called-during-april-2016-general-conference?lang=eng - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.68.66 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Also here are the releases https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.68.66 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have typically been the one to make the changes based on my current list of currently serving area seventies. I haven't had time or energy yet this go round to finish changing my list so I can update this one. But rest assured, it will happen. And in reality, we have time. The releases will be effective on Sunday, and within the next week, I hope to have this list up to date. Thanks for your attention to this matter, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Jgstokes (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)I

With my apologies, I will be trying to get this done before the end of the week. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Process Begun for Updating This Page Prior to April 2019 General Conference

Hello again, everyone! I have begun the preliminary process of updating this page prior to the upcoming General Conference. I will continue to work on it as I have time, but hope to have it completely updated within the next week or less. Post here with any questions on these changes. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To capitalize or not to capitalize, that is the question

Hello again, everyone! In a prior discussion on the threads of this page, a consensus was established to capitalize the word "Quorum" in each section about the formation of those Quorums. Accordingly, yesterday, as a result of the announced creation of four new Quorums, I used the capitalized case for the references to the newest Quorums. When I had capitalized "Quorums" in that newest section in conformity to styllistic consistencies in the earlier sections, the capital case was exclusively removed from just the newest section by ChristensenMJ. So as a result of his good-faith efforts to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, I wanted to put the matter of whether or not to capitalize "Quorum" in this article up for discussion again. I will be happy to get on board with and support whatever the consensus decides on the matter, but it seems to me to be a bad idea to capitalize the word through most of the article but to not do so in a single section thereof. Anyone who has any thoughts on that may feel free to weigh in here. Thanks in advance to all who will discuss this question. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly not having read the prior discussion, this isn't about consensus, or consistency, this is about typical and appropriate writing/editing style, WP generally included. Sometimes it will be an appropriate proper noun-like use. In other instances, it's a "generic" use of the general term. Consensus wouldn't generally be the sole reasoning behind just deciding whether to capitalize a word throughout an entire article, regardless of its use. What it actually probably means the whole article should be viewed in this same light, it's not intended to simply be based on this single section. This just happens to be only one I looked at, given the new additions. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

ChristensenMJ, I hope you know that I appreciate your ongoing good faith efforts in articles related to the Church. I understand your position on this issue. But I look at this situation with a few things in mind. References to members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whether made here on Wikipedia, or seen anywhere else, use the capital Q. References in other articles to members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy also use the capital case. And in sources that cover the service of area seventies, in listing their Quorum affiliations where the listing of that affiliation has been applicable in such references, Quorum appears to be consistently capitalized there as well. Styllistic consistency is a very good reason to keep the word capitalized. I also wanted to let you know that I fully agree that consensus should not be the sole reason or even the most important reason to do things a certain way on Wikipedia. It might perhaps be interesting to find out if any Church sources in any way have used the lower case in reference to the word. Thanks for weighing in here on this issue. Please keep up the great work. I appreciate all your efforts here. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Serious updating needed

I just did revisions in which I removed Massimo de Feo and donald Deschler from the list. Both were released as area seventies back in 2016. I removed all released in October 2020, and several released earlier in 2020, 2019 and 2018. There may still be some other hold outs on the list, and I am not sure all 2020 additions are on the list. I added the 4 from October 2020 but am not sure about April 2020 additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Johnpacklambert

Thanks for your efforts, John Pack Lambert. I am just adding my agreement, since I also recently noticed the list is in serious need of updating. That not only includes the individuals with calls and releases, which are many, but the number of quorums has not been updated to reflect recent organizational changes made by the church, so people aren't aligned with the right grouping. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Salomon Aliche is the only 2019 called individual on the list. I also think that there are no April 2020 called individuals on the list. This is a staggeringly huge project. It is much bigger than I realized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me just weigh in here: For the better part of the last two years, I have been working on an overhauled update of this page as time and circumstances have allowed. I have had other things to deal with within that time, on Wikipedia, off Wikipedia, and with life in general. Those updates are continuously in progress, and I am working on them as much as I can right now. I have a fully updated list available to me of the current membership of each quorum, and have been transferring that information to a separate document following the formats and tmeplates here as I can. So it's a work in progress. I hope to have that overhaul to this page posted here by or before the end of this year, but based on current circumstances, both those within and outside of my control, that's just what I'm hoping for. But I did want to mention here that that process is in progress, it's just slow-going. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have updated the entire listing of the 3rd quorum. I have stated on the 4th quorum. This will take a while. I should have it done sometime next week, maybe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think I have removed all outdated entries and put all entries in the list under the right quorum. So now we just need to add all the recently called people. This list had not been effectively updated for 4 and a half years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• The 4th quorum listing is now up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnpacklambert, for initiating the process of making changes. You are more than welcome to continue working on that process. However, one big reason the updates have taken me so long to work on personally is that I've had to resolve discrepancies in the Church's list before I can ensure the accuracy of my own. There are a couple of examples that spring to mind. When Daniel P. Hall served as an area seventy, the Church noted he was doing so while residing in one of the Africa Areas of the Church. Although that waws true at the initial time of his call, he later relocated to Great Britain for the remainder of his service, and based on the announcement of the additional quorums of the seventy, was noted on the Church list as belonging to the Third Quorum when his geographic location actually placed him in the Seventh Quorum. Another example: Guillermo A. Alvarez was called as an area seventy in April of last year, as verified here, and his geographic location (Guatemala) puts him in the Central America Area, which falls under the Sixth Quorum. But if you look at the listed membership shown for that Quorum on the Church's website, Guillermo A. Alvarez does not appear on that list. I also have some information on some other area seventies who, having moved with their families to a different part of the world, are in a different Quorum. And in some of those cases, the Church's list is outdated, though there is proof elsewhere to verify the changes. It's reconciling all of those differences and keeping the lists up to date, all while trying to add or remove individeuals as the list has changed over time, that has made the project impossobile to fully update in an expedited manner. With the information I have on hand, I am making those updates, but, as mentioned, it is a slow process. If you'd like to do so, feel free to continue to provide updates to this page based on the Church's list. But whenever I can get those updates completed on my end, my hope is to copy the entire updated list from my personal file and paste it on this page. Given your attempts to update the list, I will try to move up and accelerate the process of the updates on my end, and maybe, between the two of us, we can have this list updated sooner rather than later. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Update complete, and copied and pasted to replace the content of this page. Since I resolved most of the concerns mentioned in the new topics that had been posted below this one, I'm making each now a subsection of this section to confirm that each concern has been handled. Hope that's okay. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been putting more work into this update after all, due to somme errors or other problems with the table syntax. I have most (if not all) of the errors worked out for the Third-Tenth Quorums, but am having trouble figuring out how to resolve the errors that are showing up for those in the Eleventh and Twelfth Quorums. Anyone else have any ideas on how to resolve these issues? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

9th, 10th, 11th and 12th quorums

So in May 2020 there were 4 more quorums created. This list is still organizing people by the pre-2020 assignments. Here [4] is the updated list of quorum members and assignments. we really need to add these to the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted, with the updates published today, these changes have been implemented as well. The page is now up-to-date. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Age is supposed to be current age, correct?

The age listed should be the current age, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

Only slightly. The original ages entered were the ages reported at the time each current area seventy was called. The years should be advancing by one every time the anniversary of each call date is reached. Please feel free to post here with any other questions. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• For some Area Seventies I have found a statement of their actual birth date. This is why one of them, I believe from Zimbabwe, I put at what is two years past his age when he was called. The link for him goes to the bio that includes his birth date. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts and intent there, Johnpacklambert, but unless we find exact birthdates for every name on the list, or unless there is a way to use any other uniform system for the ages listed, the age noted as of the call date appears to be the best metric. Unfortunately, having updated the list of members, and while trying to resolve the errors relating to the latest updates, I personally don't have the time or capability to try and track down the exact birth dates for each area seventy, assuming there was a way to do so. In either case, an earlier consensus that is confirmed from one of the threads in the archives was to use the age as of the call date in the table, so it would take a new consensus, I believe, to use any other method, including in the case of area seventies where the exact date is known vs. area seventies whose exact birth date is not known and cannot be found. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Links and false links

Most of these people lack articles. Still the linking probably makes sense since Vai Sikahema, Henry J. Eyring, Gordon H. Smith, Art Rascon, Richard N. Holzappfel and Kevnin J. Worthen are all working links. The only one who might not be notable is Holzapfel, but with the amount of works he has published I think he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There are also false links to Marcos Cabral (the linked person died in 1903), Robert T. Smith (the linked person died in 1995), Robert Gordon (this links to a disambiguation page, but I do not believe any are correct), Edgar Flores (the same), Roberto Gonzalez (also a disambiguation page), Virgilio Gonzalez (the linked person is the wrong one) and Jose Hernandez (the link is clearly wrong).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Gless Burgess I have no strong evidence that it is the right person but I cannot rule it out. The Glenn Burgess who is an area authroity is a New Zealand police officer. The linked article is about an Australian rugby player. They are similar in age however this link [5] from early 2005 says that the future Elder Burgess was 40 then, the Wikipedia article suggests that the rugby player was 41 then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Both the article from his call as a stake president and the article from his call as an area seventy suggest that Glenn Burgess was born in either 1965 or 1964. This means he was almost certainly not born in 1963 as was the Rugby player. Him being an Auckland police officer is not incompatible with him previously being an Australian rugby player, but with the age discrepancy and nothing suggesting an artucla link this appears to be a case of building the Frankenstein. I am not sure how to unlike a false link in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, I have a personal request for you. If you have new questions about the latest updates made here, since that all falls under the subject of the updates that needed to be made, instead of starting a new topic at the bottom, could you please add on new concerns as either a subsection or just a new comment under this section rather than starting a new one? If your questions so far are any indication, there will be a lot to address, and it's just tidier to keep it all under one topic. Could we please do that instead?

The Glenn Burgess who is an area seventy is not the one who is a professional athlete, so the link to that name shouldn't be there. The only other thing I'd add is that I am still working on resolving error issues with the table. All of that is still in process. So if any new questions could be posted here as a new subsection, that would be helpful as far as keeping the page organized. And that way, we don't have a random bunch of new threads all dealing with concerns related to the next update. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Could we create a listing of past area seventies or is that just too much information

I have to admit I always feel bad about deleting entries from an article. I was wondering if we could create a list of past area seventies or if that would be too difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Two things. First, if we were to create such a list, it would need to be in a separate article, as this article deals directly with the current composition of area seventies Quorums and lists those currently serving. Second, such an article would need to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and have sufficient sourcing. Thirdly, that would be a time-consuming process for any individual editor or group of editors. I personally don't have the time to invest in a project like that, since it would deal with roughly 25 years of callings, releases, Quorum changes, area creations, divisions, and consolidations, etc. It would need to be thoroughly done and well-sourced. If you wanted to get a draft article set up for that purpose and begin working on it, keeping it in draft space unless and until it's complete and wouldn't be likely to be nominated for deletion soon after the approval of its' formal creation, feel free. I'd need to see what you have in mind in that respect before I comment further on it. Fair enough? --Jgstokes (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Restructuring this page

Hello again, everyone! Within this last week, as verified in the comments of the last two topics on this page, I have taken steps to bring this page up-to-date with the latest changes in area seventies. I was able to successfully make the updates themselves, as I also mentioned. But I ran into a problem while adding the information for the Eleventh and Twelfth Quorums of the Seventy. For those looking at this article, if they look at those two Quorums, under the column marked "Quorum" is a three-letter phrase, "Unk". I tried to resolve that issue and get the words "Eleventh" and "Twelfth" to properly appear, but to no avail. Due to my failure to adequately fix this issue, I put in a request for assistance. The responding editor let me know that the issue was that the area seventy template was not programmed to accept any Quorum numeration above 10, which is why the "Unk" was showing up for each of the members of the last two Quorums.

Unless someone reading this has the know-how and patience to change the template parameters to allow any number of Quorums 12 or above, the editor who responded to my request suggested that we instead consider ditching the complex template entirely in favor of using a simpler method for this list going forward. In that respect, I did have at least one suggestion: Two other Wikipedia articles showing the currently-serving general authorities and List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do utilize some templates, but at the bottom of the page. In-article, tables have been the preferred method in both of those articles for a long time now. I think the easiest thing would probably be utilizing sortable tables for this information, which would allow us to have either one sortable table for all area seventies or else several sortable tables if we wanted to do separate ones for each of the current Quorums. Either way, the tables would negate the needs for the templates, and might be easier to maintain and alter when that need rearises.

So that is my proposal: to switch the current system using the Wikipedia area seventy template (which has been fraught with issues for a while) to a system where one table or multiple tables are utilized. I wanted to ensure before I go ahead and set something like that up that anyone who had any objections, a way to fix the current problem, or a different suggestion has time to weigh in. And if the consensus is not in favor of my proposal, I think I could get on board with any other reasonable suggestion that might be presented here. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the issue with the false links is a result of there being a template instead of tables. I found 3 more false links going over the current template, so that is a major problem. I really think we need to go to multiple tables. I really do not think many people feel a need to sort the entire list, and having multiple tables means multiple entry points for editing, which considering this changes at least two times a year, and in a few cases more often than that, would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, thanks for that observation. It would make sense that the faulty parameters for the list that prevent more than 10 Quorums being listed might also lead to faulty links for names that appear to be correct, based on whatever algorithm the templates have used. It's also a point well taken that quorum-by-quorum is likely a better system than just having all area seventies in a list. So we're looking at an overhaul for the entire page, then. Hopefully, I can get a new version of this page up and running by the end of this year. Given that we'll be looking at individual tables, it will be a more lengthy process. But I'll get the ball rolling on that as I can. Thanks again for weighing in here. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For the information of all who may read this page, I ran some troubleshooting on the parameters of the existing template, and I was able to extend those parameters to allow the Eleventh and Twelfth Quorums to be properly listed. I'm going to preset additional parameters for those Quorums in case the number expands again at any point in the future so that it will be ready whenever that might be necessary. So I think that we won't shake up the status quo, unless anyone reading about the fix I've engineered feels that the page restructuring is still necessary. Hope that's okay. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for doing that. Jae (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly encourage us to continue to have one table for all the quorums. Sorting by year of sustaining and age is often done. --Trödel 20:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

77 Area Seventies Sustained During General Conference Leadership Sessions

Hello again, everyone! This morning, as reported by the Newsroom and [6], D. Todd Christofferson represented the First Presidency in presenting a list of 77 new area seventies. After the names were presented, Russell M. Nelson stood and called for a sustaining vote on the list of names. Per the sources, sustaining new area seventies by name during the leadership sessions will be the "new normal", and when the new changes in Church leadership are presented as usual during General Conference, there will be a call for a sustaining vote for every name on the list as a whole, without that full list being read again over the pulpit. Is that something sufficiently noteworthy to mention here? If so, what si the best way to do that? Parenthetically, I should add that I plan on updating my personal files subsequent to updating this page with the new information as soon as I see specifically which area seventies are released on Saturday. Thanks in advance for any feedback on this.--Jgstokes (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Count as of April 2022

@Jgstokes - I get 326 when I count the names on this list. If the count is 321 we need to find the 5 that have been released :) --Trödel 22:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I keep full lists of area seventies alphabetically by Quorum. So I can double-check that list and see what shouldn't be there. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

At a glance, one problem I found was that Pedro E. Hernandez was listed in the Third Quorum, when his geographical location puts him in the Ninth. And it appears some area seventies called as General Authority Seventies were not removed, which could explain the discrepancies. More to come as I check my list against this one. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I found several other problems, as outlined in the latest edit summaries, including individuals that should have been removed or should have been included from previous General Conferences. The correct count should be 325. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup and the proper alphabetizing. I had cleaned up some of that but didn't catch it all. Interestingly there are 4 area authorities that have been in for longer than 7 years, and I've been curious about the area seventy that was called last year in April and released in October. --Trödel 22:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should this page be reformatted?

Hello again, everyone! I am requesting comments here on whether or not it would be a good idea to reformat this page. I like that we have the names, dates of call, ages and locations, but I am wondering if there would be a way to simplify the page formatting (in much the same way that @Dmm1169 did with this page. I am wondering how feasible it would be to not only list names, quorums, ages at dates of call, and current locations (where known) but also to add information about the specific areas within which those on this list are assigned. I have put together a document showing the breakdown of area seventies by quorum within each area, and another showing an alphabetical list of area seventies by quorum. So the questions to consider is, would a format change for the page be possible to improve page navigation and reader experience? Would it be possible, along with reformatting, to add other fields to each area seventy? And would having more information (such as the area to which each is assigned) be helpful or just more cumbersome? @Dmm1169, given your excellent work on overhauling the List of temples page, I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on this, but anyone else is, as always, welcome to weigh in as well. I look forward to the discussion of these questions. Jgstokes (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I think showing assigned area would be good. I'm not sure the format you're wishing, but another column stating "Area" should handle this as the columns are sortable (Similar to Membership Statistics Tables). Could you link a sample formatting you plan on using? Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a format in mind, and I haven't done any mock-ups on anything yet. That's not really in my skill set. But given the way the temple page has changed for the better with the new format, I was just wondering if there's a better way to organize and display the data here, and if that would be something worth pursuing for this page as well. Sorry I wasn't clear on that before. Jgstokes (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this table format what you're thinking? Dmm1169 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Would that table format also include a legend or key showing what the abbreviations are? I like the area abbreviations, and I assume that most could understand that NA automatically refers to North America, but as Wikipedia editors, I'd want to make sure that anyone with questions could have them answered right in that table. Other than that, I have no notes. This is great. Thank you! Jgstokes (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Similar to Membership Statistics Tables format. Dmm1169 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my sandbox page. It needs "a=[abbreviation]" added to each row.

I'm not sure if "notes" should continue being a separate column or placed footnotes. There's less wrapping in cell if it's a footnote. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd be more in favor of those becoming footnotes, especially if the table could more easily be kept and updated without a clunky notes column that is only applicable to a handful of area seventies in two area presidencies. That's good thinking. Jgstokes (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)