Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands/Archive 1

message: Can we take off the spoiler warning, or does mentioning the return of Exile Island count as a spoiler? --Maxamegalon2000 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can definatly take it off. The name and location has been revealed, and the Exile Island returning part has been revealed, both by the actual show, so it is no longer a spoiler. I'll do that right now TeckWiz 11:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler

message: I have reverted back to revision 66660856 by Hotwiki because the two anons who put/changed info gave no sources. Also, the list of possible contestants is risky, as it hasn't been confirmed at all. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The articles for the previous series have not had the contestants age and home towns in the table.  I'm not sure that information brings any particular value to the table.  Any opinions on leaving that information in or removing it?  My opinion is to remove it. The bolding seems a little excessive, too.  I've also have doubts about the seemingly random choice of tribe colors.  I'd rather see no color until the series actually airs since tribe color tends to be important in the game. -- Gogo Dodo 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tribe colors aren't random - the buffs were on display this morning on the Early Show. HeyNow10029 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  I was not aware of that. -- Gogo Dodo 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contestants list 

message: Havent seen any spoiler sites with these names yet.
and the person who put it up is not a Wiki user nor did they verify (or put in) their source.
Are the tribe names correct?
Removing it until it can be verified click me
<d3345>l4V78> 08:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIBE NAMES 

message: Why in that order?
It appeared to be orginally random then someone changed it alpabetically by tribes and contestants, then it was back.
It may not be the case, but the "white" tribe always appear to be on top.
Plus - there should be a consensus over what language to use.
<d3345>l4V78> 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say to order the contestants alphabetical by last name since that is the order used in previous series.  Everything will sort out as the survivors are voted out, but until voted out, it should be alphabetical by last name. -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Ill change it to alphabetical by last name and see what happens... If it changes back to Rarotonga on top then we'll know something's up...  <d3345>l4V78> 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This series of Survivor has sparked a good deal of attention and controversy even outside the United States. Should the controversy be mentioned somewhere or is that inappropriate?(Note this is not a show I watch, I heard about it because of the controversy not interest in it)--T. Anthony 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned on the Survivor front page. If you would like, I would say stick it in =)  <d3345>l4V78> 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be, probably in it's own subsection, but I don't think the order of the contestants should be driven by hows the tribes are split. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of contestants 

message: Not sure if it is significant enough, but if possible, could someone protect the page from vandalism and constant reversions?
* Wikipedia policy is to avoid usage of capitals which were removed, but user 74.12.145.196 reverts back
* Survivor pages dictate contestants to be listed alphabetically by surname pre-show but user 74.12.145.196 reverts back
* Caucasian-American tribe continually returned to top of the table (racist behaviour?)
* vandalism
<d3345>l4V78> 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should get semi-protecion for a day of two, which would also give us time to get these accounts blocked. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the thought of semi-protection is a good one, I think it might be a bit early.  I've seen worse reverting where the page is not semi-protected.  We would need to request the semi-protection at WP:RPP. -- Gogo Dodo 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the white people to the top is not racist. The white people in the game are clearly on the chopping block, and hence they are put on the top Thegreyanomaly 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request To Protect Article Page  

message: Can we have some information on the controversy surrounding this? More than a couple of people have voiced their displeasure with the premise of this particular "Survivor," for obvious reasons.SolrosorSolrosor
:A section on the controversy was there, but certain anonymous editors keep removing it.  I restored the section in question. -- Gogo Dodo 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Hey Gogo Dodo [and possibly others],
I've finally caught up to the person that has been constantly editting the paragraph that I personally put in. Prior to any of your changes, my original contribution and work to wikipedia was as follows:
"On a September 4th issue of TV Guide, the names of the 4 tribes were revealed: Aitutaki (Hispanics-RED), Rarotonga (Caucasians-BLUE), Manihiki (Africans-YELLOW) and Puka Puka (Asians-GREEN). All four tribes are named after the many islands in the nation .[1]"
After your editing to my original work, it became as follows:
"On the September 4 issue of TV Guide, the names of the four tribes were revealed: Aitutaki (Hispanic-Americans - red), Rarotonga (Caucasian-Americans - blue), Manihiki (African-Americans - yellow) and Puka Puka (Asian-Americans - green). All four tribes are named after the many islands in the nation .[4]"
Also I've read your message: "Users: 74.12.145.196 (Azn sam8 ?) keep reverting the Survivor: Cook Islands article in ways that appear to be racist (the Rarotonga - Caucasian American tribe are always changed back to being on top) and inserting capitals that have been changed to lower case more than once. Could you block the offending user or protect the page please?"
I personally take a huge offense to you blaming me of something that I did not or did not intend to do. First of all I do not understand what you are talking about when you say the Caucasians are always being on top. Secondly, I am Asian so why would I be racist to my own people by putting the Asians below the Caucasians? Thirdly, if your going to make something so little become a huge issue then I find that very very immature.
My final complaint is you refering the Caucasians as "Caucasian Americans". Caucasians are already Americans so refering them as "Caucasian Americans" is entirely unnessary
And please feel free to discuss with me through hotmail as well because I'm not quite familiar with the messaging system on Wikipedia.
My hotmail is: azn_sam8@hotmail.com. You may talk to me through MSN Messenger as well.
Seriously we better settle this because I know your starting to get annoyed by me reverting my work. All I'm asking you is to stop editing that ONE PARAGRAPH that I've put up on wikipedia
:Please remember that Wikipedia is an online and open encyclopedia, where everyone is allowed to edit the exisiting information. While you can have your own input, please note that Wikipedians work together to create a consensus on how articles should be edited and presented. These rules and policies are put into place for Wikipedia entries to promote consistency in presentation, meaning, and information. 
:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed fairly by others, do not submit it. 
:See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more information on editing. 
:<d3345>l4V78> 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are addressing me directly, you need to look at the revision history a little more carefully.  I did not make the changes that you claim that I did.  I did not call you racist.  However, I do agree with the other editors about the changes.  As for your specific points: On your revision , the caucasian tribe is listed first.  The sort order that you have is not apparent to me.  It is not sorted by last name, first name, or tribe name.  If you review the other seasons of Survivor (and the discussion above), you will see that the default sort order is by last name.  The sort order will eventually change to how the contestants are voted out, but for the contestants who are still in the game, the order is by last name. About your reverts, you are reverting more than just your one paragraph.  You are also removing any other changes between your last revision on your revert.  For example, I made some stylistic changes other other fixes , which you promptly removed.   As others have pointed out Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and your additions will get edited and/or thrown out.  It happens to everybody.  That's the nature of the place.  Wikipedia is also a place of consensus.  When making large changes, getting consensus is best.  And the consensus here appears to be to leave the sort order and changes as they are, not your revision. -- Gogo Dodo 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry I am the person who reverts the Survivor Cook Islands page 

message: I dont get how you and another user TeckWiz see organizing the tribes by their race as "racist". If you think it is racist dont watch the show. Please give me a clear forward straight answer how this is racist. First and foremost I was not the orginal person who organized them that way so do not rant on me for something that I did not do. Secondly, how can you say that "I" or someone else organized them purely based on their race?? There are other factors that they could've been intended to be grouped: Tribe colour, Tribe name, etc...
Lastly, why are you and TeckWiz making such a huge issue with the Caucasians being on the top? How is that racist towards the other contestants? Keep in mind that I am Asian so why would I demean my own race? And if you view that as racism why don't you organize them by alphabetical order?
Please do email me or even add me on MSN Messenger so we could furthur discuss this because I am really getting annoyed of having to revert the edited articles back into the pre-vandalised ones.
My email is: azn_sam8@hotmail.com
:Please remember that Wikipedia is an online and open encyclopedia, where everyone is allowed to edit the exisiting information. While you can have your own input, please note that Wikipedians work together to create a consensus on how articles should be edited and presented. These rules and policies are put into place for Wikipedia entries to promote consistency in presentation, meaning, and information. 
:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed fairly by others, do not submit it. 
:See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more information on editing. 
:<d3345>l4V78> 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept has been deemed racist for reasons that seem fairly obvious to me. You are segregating contestants by race and then "pitting" one race against the other. Did you ever see the movie The Great White Hype? If they had separate them into "Team Catholic, Team Protestant, Team Judaism, and Team Islam" this could have also been seen as divisive. Age and gender, despite CBS's protestations, are not at all similar. For one thing age and gender have affects on health or social skills relating to survival that are less debated. For another there's never been much or any history of "Gender riots", "Age riots", "Gender Segregation", or "Age segregation" in North America.--T. Anthony 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I didn't call the sort order racist.  I do not think you sorted them for racist reasons.  However, I do not agree with your sort order.  Your sort order does not make any sense and seems arbitrary to me.  It's not by tribe color, tribe name, contestant first or last name, or even alphabetical by the tribe's race.  As for why, other editors did not change the order, we did... we changed it to alphabetical by last name as per precedent of previous seasons. -- Gogo Dodo 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furthermore 

message: I never knew there was a Survivor policy. I only knew there was a BIg Brother one. Where can I find the Survivor policy? TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor Policy 

message: Caucasian-American is unnecessary, much like you dont say White-Americans; please leave it as Caucasians only (CBS refers to them as the White Tribe, not the White-American tribe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs) 
:Didn't I notice that one of the contestants was from Peru? How does that make her a Hispanic-American? Unless we go with the broader meanings of American and Hispanic...  Nowimnthing 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think everyone forgets that Hispanic is not a racial term, being that many South Americans, all Spaniards, and some Central Americans (inclduing Mexicans), are Caucasian.
*Caucasian is a disambiguation page, and the word itself is an innaccurate, out of date and USA-centric term.  I changed it to White American, but since there is opposition to the word American, I will change it to simply White. In any case, it should not be changed back to Caucasian, because Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. Spylab 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasian-American 

message: You said that people are getting worked up about it? Not really. It's just your constant reversion of the Survivor: Cook Islands is irritiating.  If you have any ideas over major changes, please place it on the discussion page; for example: if you have any ideas about the order of contestants put it on the discussion page, but dont revert the article itself. When a decision has been discussed and made, you can then go and change the table.  Something like this is already happening from your comments and you can further contribute to it here: Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands.
 Little changes (as you have noted - the "Caucasian Americans" thing) could be easily fixed by going to edit this page and taking out the "-Americans" part of it. However, your reversions delete later edits, things that have been decided by group consensus and common edits to improve the page (e.g. removing unneccesary capitals). You can also partially revert.
And for the record, it was only suggested that the order of the tribes may be racist as the Rarotonga tribe always seemed to go back to the top (as you have done again by reverting). If you must revert, please give notice in the description of your edit and explain your reasons why.  Please sign your comments by inserting four tildes (~) after every comment.
<d3345>l4V78> 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azn sam8 

message: I predict the show will get shaken up when it is revealed that one of the latinos is actually a latino-looking arab... who lied during auditions and is then forced off the show for not being the right race.
Meanwhile... someone from the black tribe who was adopted will find out--on the show--that one of their real parents is asian... and subsequently become a double-agent for the other tribe.
And in the end the white tribe will win, but it well then be revealed that half of them have ties to the KKK.  And then America will feel dirty and ashamed of this show.
(Seriously, what are the CHANCES of this show going off completely without anyone, from any team, making any racist comments?)
(Corby 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I predict... 

message: I thought that everyone came to a final consensus that we were going to organize the contestants by the way in which the official website lists them.... why is it that we're still organizing them by last name even though we agreed to do first name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.146.66 (talk • contribs) 
:Why? Because you did not discuss it - you went ahead and did it yourself.  QUOTE:  My finalized changes please dont change it.  I revised (once again) Caucasian-Americans into Caucasians only; -Americans does not need to be there because it is unneccessary (much like how CBS referred to them as the "White Tribe" instead of the "White-American Tribe". Anf finally because some of you who keep on claiming that organizing the tribes by their tribe colour is racist,  I decided to  reorganize them into the way how the official website does it, which is by their first name instead of last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs) .   
::It was a major change so others decided to revert your changes. If you scroll back up the page and read the previous discussion, you will see it was previously decided by more than one person  that the list would be alphabetical by last name, just like the other seasons.   lease remember to sign your comments by inserting four of these ~.  <d3345>l4V78> 09:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not agreed on. I suggested making a page that has bios of all the contestants. I also suggested since we would have a bio page, we could use first names only on the table. Look at the bottom of the topic on this talk page called "Why do you keep doing this." Gogo Dodo agrees with me. See the bio page here TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoops! ^_^ <d3345>l4V78> 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that the bio page is complete, if nobody has any objects, I'd like to make the change to first name only with preference to nickname and remove the last name, age, and home town. Then sort by first name. -- Gogo Dodo 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made the change.  If you disagree, make sure you revert just that last edit as I corrected a few other things that needed to be removed no matter what. -- Gogo Dodo 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being bold Gogo Dodo. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhhh 

message: I find it strange that the title of the first episode is "I Can Forgive Her But I Don't Have To Because She Screwed With My Chickens". I was reverted by Gogo Dodo yesterday because an anon put it in and it seemed like vandalism, but today UWAFanatic put it in and gave source. Any ideas what the title is about? TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I wouldn't have believed it to be correct.  I had checked the Yahoo listing just before I reverted it and that title was not listed.  I rechecked and there it was.  My apologies to the anonymous IP. -- Gogo Dodo 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Who? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Can Forgive Her... 

message: I thought Mark Burnett said that the show would do away with sterotypes.  From the first episode it seems to have reinforced them.  The black team loses because they don't have the intellect, a sterotype, to complete a challenge which required some thinking.  Then the blacks pick a white person to send to exile island.  And lastly they are shown as being lazy, another sterotype.
69.234.66.23 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterotypes 

message: What does everybody think of removing the last four columns from the "The game" table since it lists redundant information?  I'm proposing removing the Original, Merge, Vote, and Finish columns.  My reasoning is that the table's main purpose appears to give a summary of the episodes, but the four columns are details already covered in the other tables.  The Tribes and Finish is in the Contestants table and Vote is in the Voting History table.  Comments? -- Gogo Dodo 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I agree. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been five days, so I did it.  I wanted to put the change in before episode 2 aired. -- Gogo Dodo 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happened to this? I thought the table looked way better in the condensed form, but it seems to have grown again... --Maelwys 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it so that it was in the same form as the past season tables. However, it got way too cluttered so I removed the episode titles. -- Scorpion0422 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to remove information from the standard table and put it somewhere else, why not just remove the information that's causing the clutter, and is already somewhere else? Especially the (4 now) "tribe" columns, which don't really add much to the table, and just clutter it up. Ideally I think it should again have all the stuff removed that Gogo listed above, but at the very least I think we could get rid of those. We already know which tribe lost (and therefor the current tribe of the eliminated guy) we don't need his whole history too as it's not relevent to the current episode, and already in two other tables above and below that one. --Maelwys 04:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Put the episode titles back in and remove the tribe columns since the tribe affiliations are already listed in the Contestants table. -- Gogo Dodo 04:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done this now. Already it looks better, I think. And this is hopefully a good compromise between the people that wanted to keep everything, and the people that wanted to slim down the table as above. --Maelwys 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better looking.  I did add in the tribe color of the Voted Out at the time of their voting out to stick with the "standard" of the rest of the table. -- Gogo Dodo 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above change got reverted twice.  Anybody have any thoughts on colorizing the Voted Out? -- Gogo Dodo 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured the table looks better without the names being coloured. After the merge hits, there will be no tribes and thus the immunity, reward, etc winners will not be coloured. So it makes little sense to colour the person who is voted out. Besides, the tribe of the person voted out can be found in both of the other tables. -- Scorpion0422 02:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that either everything should be colored or nothing should be colored on the table.  It's just odd to see some colored and some not.  True, you are going to get a section all the same color, but that's going to happen with the other tables, too, and that's likely to continue post merge.  The colors are not going to stop post merge with Voting History.  We have already veered off "standard" with regards to the previous series as there really is no "standard".  Some have no names colored, some have just tribes, some have no related table at all. -- Gogo Dodo 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The game" table condense? 

message: I corrected the tribal council dates as the 3rd tribal council took place on Day 8, and the 4th tribal council on Day 11, as last night's episode started with the night of day 8 after the previous tribal council.  RobertCMWV1974 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council Dates 

message: I noticed an anon put in "results" of tonight's show. They were reverted by Maelwys. If this was a respected registered user, it shouldn't be reverted. I'm going to leave a message on the anon's talk page to ask him where he got the info, and hope it's not a rotating IP. Maelwys, as Madchester stated on the TAR 10 talk page: Wikipedia doesn't run on tape delay. If it hasn't aired, or it hasn't aired in a time zone, it still goes here, as long as there is a source. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But as you said, it wasn't from a registered user. And as far as I knew, the information hadn't yet released into the public domain in any verifiable form (since I don't believe there are any stations/timezones that play the show 12 hours (or more) before the EST broadcast tonight, and there was no citation for any reliable source posting the spoilers). So as far as I could tell, it was basically indistinguishable from vandalism (and may still prove to be vandalism, if the "results" posted there are wrong tonight). But assuming good faith I marked the edit summary to show that I reverted it as unverified future-info, instead of vandalism. --Maelwys 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and as it turns out, it was indeed just vandalism, because it was completely wrong. --Maelwys 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I recognized that when Raro one, and I check the history and the anon put Aitu. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Not Aired Info 

message: Just a little picky thing... 
Should it be "the tribes have been divided into race" or an alternative? Because we are all one human race, not many "human races". I am aware that the use of the term is, of course, accepted, however, wouldn't 'ethnicity' (or another word?) be used instead? 59.167.108.95 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Impartial Language 

message: I think it's important to have this information on the page somwhere. And seeing how there isn't a seperate page that has all this info, it should go here. Most of the contestants will not get their own page, so the only place on Wikipedia anybody could find last names, ages, etc would be here. It's not like listing this information makes the page extremely cluttered anyway. -- Scorpion0422 08:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing the contestants home, age, last name, etc 

message: The Recap episode puts the numbering of episodes into question.  Is the Recap counted as episode 7 or is that skipped since no game activity happened?  The Voting History takes the view that the Recap didn't count.  The Episode Notes had it so that it did count, but then I just changed it so it didn't.  Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo 05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In past Survivor pages they don't take the recap episode into account for numbering. I added it to the chart just because I thought it ws important to note. -- Scorpion0422 05:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that.  Works for me.  Just checking with everybody else. -- Gogo Dodo 05:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I placed that as episode 7 originally.  I changed it back and placed last night's as episode 8.  RobertCMWV1974 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the Voting History table needs to be fixed.  If you look at Survivor: Panama, the Recap episode was skipped in the numbering.  It was listed in the episode table, but not anywhere else. -- Gogo Dodo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode numbering 

message: Somebody stated that the season ends on December 17.  But since there are still 2 extra castaways than would normally be by day 19, it may possibly go one more episode.  RobertCMWV1974 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "somebody" was a CBS press release, so I tend to believe it.  That same press release said the final episode would feature the final five, instead of the usual final four.  And there might be another double-elimination episode, or there might be an episode where somebody quits, is medically evacuated, or is ejected for violating a rule, along with a regular evacuation.  --Psiphiorg 01:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TVGuide.com says that episode 9 has two people voted off , so that accounts for the 2 extra castaways. -- Gogo Dodo 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Episode

message: In the most recent episode, Brad was voted off and Jeff said that he was the first member of the jury. This puts the jury starting at 12 instead of the usual 9. Normally, we have seven votes at the end for the winner, but won't this one yield ten votes? I don't see why they would allow for the possibility of a tie when they could just wait a few days and have nine. Unless they're going to kick someone off and force them to bypass the jury, I don't see how that could work very well. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, but I'm sure they thought of that.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is another "twist" coming up.  We will just have to watch and see. -- Gogo Dodo 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The final episode (the three-hour one with the live final hour) will have a "final five" instead of a "final four".  My guess is that two people will still be voted out as usual, and that the jury will consist of 11 members voting on the remaining three castaways.  This will require different strategies for the last few members of the tribe, as the winner of the final immunity challenge will not get to decide who comes with him/her (two of the other three could force a tie).  --Psiphiorg 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. :) Irk(talk) 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jury