Talk:Rolo Lamperouge

Geass Information

For reference, the Lost Colors video clip where Rolo uses his Geass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqzh76IbmQ

Note that the Geass symbol seen is a consequence of the Protagonist activating his own Geass.
-Fallacies (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dominique the Cyclops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-Ho_Guns#Dominique_the_Cyclops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA4zjuuGeCk

-Fallacies (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter how similar they are, comparisons should be made within the universe of Code Geass. I know it's a good anime but it doesn't have anything to do with Code Geass. It's like your using the popularity of Code Geass to advertise other anime. --Kentone (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that, in line with past Filipino anon edits, you have again outright removed the content within a minute of the above post with no attempt at gaining consensus within discussion. I further note that all contributions you have historically submitted to this page have been precisely this removal -- you have made no other significant edits to any articles related to Code Geass.

My rationale for keep is explained in the section below, Outside Comparisons of Geass, which I don't believe you've addressed or taken account of in your above statement. It is quite lengthy, and took a significant amount of time to put together. Please read through it and respond accordingly. The disputed content explicitly violates no rules and is not large enough to be considered an eyesore.

To greatly summarize: Establishing connections with devices that are direct precedents within the medium of anime and manga has the same meaning as observing that a movie or literary work makes reference to some other fictional work. The intent is not to advertise, and really the mentioned series are old and established enough not to require advertisement. Additionally, the language involved ("popularly compared with") implies reference to a realworld fan response that states the listed comparisons; it isn't just some random trivia that I put there -- it's a widespread realworld phenomenon that may be objectively observed. You can gain an idea of just how widespread it is from the Google links listed below, which now turn up significantly more search results than they did when I first created the discussion post they are in.

I am again reversing your edit. Please respond in the correct discussion, further down this page. Why does the presence of this one small paragraph offend you so much?

-- Fallacies (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You don't have any official sources and citations which according to Wikipedia must be removed. Like the poster said below "Google search numbers are hardly the standard by which Wikipedia should be measured.". This is trivia which Wikipedia also doesn't allow. Why don't you add those comparisons to the Dominique article? Because it's old and very few people go there? There is a hint of advertising even if you didn't really intended it and advertising is not allowed. Minority views shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Why do you love this small paragraph so much that you couldn't just let it go? --Kentone (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You continue a WP:EDITWAR from the Filipino anons in a category and article you have no history of editting, and refuse to leave the status quo of the article be for at least the duration of discussion of appropriateness. You have also continued posting in the wrong discussion despite my request, paraphrasing as suits your interest in removal and ignoring responses that I have already made below. These are not accusations -- they are a statement of fact. I have stated in the past that I suspect you of being a Puppet Master, but have to this point never actually requested a WP:CHECK, as for the duration of semiprotection no IPs can edit. If indeed IP warring continues following the lift of the semiprotection, a Checkuser will be requested.

In the circumstance that you obtain a consensus that the section should be removed, I would gladly endorse said removal. This hasn't happened yet. In general, for purposes of improving articles, Wikipedia does not advise outright removal of unsourced sections -- if you wanted simply to note that there are no citations for this, you could use Template:Fact. This is a valid criticism of the disputed content that I will make no attempt to contest, besides that stated below under "Content-wise ..." Content that is disputed is generally left within the article and commented on in discussion until some consensus can be reached.

You have purported that the disputed content violates a number of rules, but altogether you seem unfamiliar with the wording and intent those very rules that you cite. I would advise that you take a look at Wikipedia:Talkpage and the links I have above and below provided for a better understanding of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines; and then please account for WP:IMPERFECT. I would also note that this response is being given in the assumption that you will indeed familiarize yourself with the content of the links; I do not care to actually copypaste everything from the guideline articles here for your convenience.

Content-wise, you state an Original Research violation while ignoring the neutral objective observable reality that the Jojo comparison is in fact popularly made outside Wikipedia -- and here "popularly" means that at the least thousands of fans have made this response. If I wanted to be accurate to the actual figure represented in the Google links below, tens of thousands, at least. As per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, is this the minority you speak of? You first removed under the claim of irrelevance, but in fact the section is in line with the advisory essay at Wikipedia:Relevance.

If it is Independently Verifiable by anyone with knowledge of the relevant languages, is it in fact original research? I am here, to borrow the language of WP:ASF, asserting the fact that such an opinion exists; I am endorsing it only in that I am stating it. Are you opposed on the grounds that you feel the existence of this comparison to be *not* a fact -- that it hasn't actually occurred, and is simply something I am making up? I note that there is presently no authority on anime within the Western world that is established enough to be considered "recognized." Do we need such an person to speak or write the fact of a specific fan response before it can be referenced here?

Please take a close look at what it says on WP:TRIVIA. Trivia is not disallowed. Certain types of trivia sections are disencouraged. This one paragraph violates no real guidelines. Also, regarding WP:SOAP on rules for so-called adverstisement -- this paragraph makes no violations as per WP:NPOV, because, as above, it is a statement about the fact of a widespread opinion.

As to why I am interested in keep: the existence of a correctly formatted section that violates no rules prevents those thousands of fans who make the comparison elsewhere from coming here, seeing that it isn't documented, and then adding another section that 'does in fact violate the rules and regulations. However, I recognize that this is a personal opinion, and it is thus inappropriate for discussion. Independent of any personal reasons for my keeping the content, my interest here is in documenting the existence of a realworld fan response and an exact precedent within a fictional work; I am not "supportive" of the opinion itself.

-- Fallacies (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside Comparisons of Geass

I note that this section has been repeatedly removed under the claim that it is irrelevant to the understanding of the subject. I'm of the opinion that because these comparisons are in fact a real-world response to the issue of Rolo's Geass, they should be appended here for informational purposes -- that is to say, though it probably will never gain any "official" status, the comparison is legitimately a fairly widespread fan reaction and not merely "random trivia" or "some random opinion from a blog." Discussion of what can be done with it or if deletion is necessary can take place under this header.
-- Fallacies (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are "fan reactions" to everything (esspecially in this series), most of them being of little substance. This outside comparison isn't much different. The sections dealing with special characteristics and abilities of both mechs and individuals in every geass article have remained firmly on-topic and disregard any percieved likenesses to anything in other animé or manga. Likening Lelouche's ability to hypnosis is fine because it's logically sound and helps keep the article within WP:WAF. The comparison being added here seems to be no more than an observation made by five guys on a thread that was read by ten other people. The bottom line is that this isn't required to understand either the ability or the character, and only achieves notation of the other anime and manga properties mentioned. -Biokinetica (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some figures:

Google Search - "geass" "the world" "rolo" (in Japanese) = 7,700 results: [1]

Google Search - "rolo" "geass" "DIO" (in Japanese) = 1,600 results: [2]

Google Search - "rolo's geass" "jojo" (in Japanese) = 820 results: [3]

Google Search - "rolo's geass" "the world" (in Japanese) = 2360 results: [4]

Google Search - "rolo" "geass" "king crimson" (in Japanese) = 512 results: [5]

Google Search - "rolo" "code geass" "king crimson" (in Japanese) = 571 results: [6]

Google Search - "rolo's geass" "king crimson" (in Japanese) = 392 results: [7]

Google Search - "geass" "za warudo" (in English) = 3020 results: [8]

I'm guessing that's it's a bit more than 10 people on some random thread.

Comparisons and allusions to influential precedents in the same medium commonly appear in articles about literary works or movies, usually sourced to the writings of some established critic or commentator. For anime, however, no single critic of sufficient authority exists, English-speaking or not. This doesn't stop several thousand people from making the comparison anyways.

It might be outrageous if it were claimed that "Code Geass is influenced by Jojo" (which can't be confirmed either way), but that's not what's being said. All that appears here is a mere note that the comparison has some popularity.

-- Fallacies (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Google search numbers are hardly the standard by which Wikipedia should be measured. The quality of this article shouldn't be held to how many random appearences of words come up next to each other. The comparison, or it having "some popularity" is not the aim of any section within this article, so whether fans make a comparison or not is irrelevant. One isn't necessary to explain Rolo's ability, therefore it has no business here. This article is about Rolo, and Rolo only. Trivia sections are the only place these kinds of things go, which are frowned upon by policy in general anyway. The contribution of that paragraph to the subject matter at hand is tenuous at best, and as such, serves no purpose. -Biokinetica (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As in my note in the article: The purpose of this section is to provide a better understanding of the device by establishing intertextual links to other fictional works within the same medium. The audience's understanding of the device is shaped by precedents in immediate memory.

The purpose of the figures were to demonstrate to you that it isn't simply "5 people posting in a thread read by 10 people," which was part of your original claim. They are not intended for any other purpose. The occurrence of the words together is also not as "random" as you claim -- at least the top 50 to 100-some searches from any of the links above are pages that actually state the comparison. Even by a conservative judgment, the opinion still held by a large amount of people -- large enough in my view to be worth making a note here. And unless I'm mistaken, this *does* provide information about Rolo -- out-of-universe real-world information about the public reception of a fictitious device associated directly with Rolo. Public reception is valid material for notation.

According to WP:WAF, secondary sources can be cited to establish real-world perspective regarding public reception and "the influence of the work on later creators and their projects." Though I agree that Google search results cannot be formally cited as any kind of "secondary source" for information, the comparison both factually exists in the real world and establishes referential notation of precedent devices within the same medium. Whether to flag this as useless trivia is a call of judgment that can't be made with objectivity either way.

Assuming your judgment to be correct, though, note that WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV do not advise removal of information not in direct violation of rules unless a trivia section becomes overrepresented in the article or unnecessarily long (also see "In Popular Culture" articles); they instead advise that the information within a trivia section be better integrated into article content. WP:EP further advises that articles do *not* need necessarily to be perfect, and that, with few exceptions, information should be preserved as possible; you are holding with deletionism rather more stringently than I think necessary. The actual guideline for "trivia sections are frowned upon" implies that "trivia should not have a section to itself" -- not that no trivia is allowable. Moving this information to a seperate trivia section *would* be frowned upon. The section in the article is currently only a single unsubtitled paragraph, so I don't really understand what the problem is.

I should rephrase: Does the presence of a single paragraph containing referential notations to other works harm the overall article?

Also, as this discussion currently represents the opinions of only two people, it's hard to say that any sort of representative consensus can be reached. I hope that we can get a few more voices to speak up.

-- Fallacies (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "deletionism", it's about necessity and focus - something quite a few geass character articles have a problem with right now. The universe-relevant explanation reveals everything that is known about Rolo's ability, so I don't see what this extra information is contributing while it risks other policies. Although it's not 'wrong' to include reactions from a fan-base, this could easily lead to WP:N, WP:V, and WP:TOPIC issues if such fan-generated content isn't kept in check (esspecially in terms of WP:N). WP:TRIV is fine advise, but as it states, it's not exempt from other policies. At the very least, this comparison must have a source so it can at least claim WP:V. These things are difficult to fix once they get out of hand, which is why it's worthwhile to know now what's contributing to understanding Rolo (the article's aim) and what's not. -Biokinetica (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In Japan and the rest of Asia, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is regarded as an epoch-defining work that is both extremely well-known and influential. To give a comparable parallel in western pop culture, Rolo's ability design is akin to creating a character with a big red S in the center of his chest who transforms into his secret identity using telephone booths. The intention here is to supply readers with relevant connective information to other works that might not otherwise be known due to lack of cultural exposure.

It's true that too much of this sort of thing is bad, but because the section really is extremely short, I presently see no explicit violations of the rules or guidelines you've so far linked within the Geass section. I suggest that instead of removing information simply because it's difficult to govern, we keep an eye on it and keep it in check.

The content as it stands now has no major issues besides lack of reference, but reference for a general fan phenomenon beyond the sort of thing I give above is unlikely to be found. What can be said is that we can objectively -- *not speculatively* -- observe that the fan phenomenon exists based on a large number of webpages independent of the source that explicitly state and discuss the comparison. The existence of this number can be independently verified by anyone with the relevant lingual understanding, and requires no independent research. Thus, to misappropriate the language of the WP:N article, I *presume* that notability exists based on verifiable objective evidence.

-- Fallacies (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumption isn't enough. When you're challenged, proof is needed. add proof and you can keep it, but it isn't necessary at the moment. He stops time from his victim's perspective. There's nothing that needs elaboration there, certainly not in the form of comparisons to abilities which function in different ways. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note my final reply in the above section to Kentone. Also, I am not "presuming in the absence of proof." I quote: "I *presume* that notability exists based on verifiable objective evidence. What can be said is that we can objectively -- *not speculatively* -- observe that the fan phenomenon exists based on a large number of webpages independent of the source that explicitly state and discuss the comparison." The only problem is that the "proof" further up in the discussion cannot be formally cited. Other than that, it exists as an objectively observable fact that may be independently verified by parties other than myself.

-- Fallacies (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To that I offer this comparison: I've read countless forum posts comparing the character Big Chill (see list of Omnitrix aliens) to other aliens in the series. it is an established fact that the creators of those aliens did mix the powers of the previous ones to create the new characters. However, this does not mean that fans are correct in assuming the mixing and matching parts, and Wikipedia is no more a vehicle for their assumptions than it is for true original research. Yes you can see people making the comparison, yes there may be a lot of them, and yes they very well may be right in their assumptions, but their assumptions are not something Wikipedia reports on. Wikipedia isn't a fan site to compare one guy's ability to another, moreover to two or three for the hell of it. The facts are all that are important, and quite frankly the list of similar powers is a tangent which offers no real clarification except with the final character in the list, the Demon Eye chick, and even then it's not that helpful. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will accept this as valid. However, please observe that majority opinions are often given representation in Wikipedia. I also quote from above: "In Japan and the rest of Asia, Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is regarded as an epoch-defining work that is both extremely well-known and influential. To give a comparable parallel in western pop culture, Rolo's ability design is akin to creating a character with a big red S in the center of his chest who transforms into his secret identity using telephone booths. The intention here is to supply readers with relevant connective information to other works that might not otherwise be known due to lack of cultural exposure."

-- Fallacies (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'll accept that fact as true. I've never even watched it and I've heard of it several times. However, how you compare it is somewhat flawed. Superman's phone booth costume changes are a trademark of the character. Moreover, Superman is the main character in his particular series, whereas this Dio Brande is the main antagonist; the Lex Luthor, if you will. Thus, comparisons become a bit more difficult to justify when you start falling deeper into the character tree. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Owing to consistent reappearances in multiple storylines within the series, Dio Brando is in fact better known than the protagonists, who are presented serially per story arc. I say this mostly to give the context of my argument.

-- Fallacies (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolo's Age

Changed them back to what's printed in Newtype Japan's May, 2008 issue. Age estimate mentioned in episode 4 of R2 was the age range necessary to pose as Lelouch's younger brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.186.10.113 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rolo Weakness

I propose Rolo's weakness to be his inability to afffect objects in his Geass's range, or more movin objects thus something might be able to kill him if it is moving to him . Please watch the 4th one as you will see some suggestions that I might be corect. Great show. 75.134.142.248 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Palin2K

The fact that inanimate objects are unaffected is already stated in the Geass section, and has been known to Lelouch since the beginning of episode 4 - he said as much when analyzing the ability, and *used* this fact within his plan to manipulate Rolo to his side. Ergo, there is no need for Rolo to explicitly restate the obvious, unless he thinks that Lelouch is a total imbecile -- it is unlikely that this is a so-called "weakness" that Rolo feels necessary to state. Also, you're ignoring the possibility that the so-called "weakness" may simply be a bit of misinformation that he feeds to Lelouch so that he can keep an Ace up his sleeve, just in case Lelouch betrays him. There is no need to add speculation to the Geass section until more details are revealed.

-- Fallacies (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think that Rolo's weakness will not be elaborated on at this point in time. Episode 5 shows Rolo disclosed to Lelouch the weakness of his Geass, but it was not shown to the audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.145.92 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited his Weakness as 5 second time limit. While not explicitly stated as 5 seconds, it is implied in Episode 6 as Rolo counts down each of his 5 fingers on his hand to Lelouch for each second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.145.182 (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The supposed 5-second limit is in fact about 26 seconds long.

-- Fallacies (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

why rolo killed shirley

The article reads "Rolo kills her when she reveals that she has recovered her memories and expresses her support for Lelouch's cause, believing she intended to kill Lelouch." This statement contradicts itself and should be replaced with something like "Rolo killed shirley because she wanted to reunite lelouch and nunnaly and then lied to lelouch saying that she wanted to kill him."72.190.49.229 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then change it, you don't need permission.Westrim (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's original research, so it'd be reverted. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How? They're right, it is worded poorly. Take a look at it. If you're talking about this: "Rolo killed shirley because she wanted to reunite lelouch and nunnaly", that's not interpretation, that's what happened. Right after she mentioned nunally, his face tightened up and the screen cut away. Next time we see her she's almost dead. I'll go ahead and change, but feel free to work with me like we did on the C.C. segment.Westrim (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

His own reasoning wins out. When she said Nunnally name she revealed her memories. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(Quotes from youtube videos by Credibility88(b) and deathjester16(a))

A; on your edit comment, I quote "rolo> She was chasing you around with a gun, brother. Lelouch> I see... You killed Shirley? Rolo> Yeah. I must remove all of your enemies, brother" If Rolo wasn't telling Lelouch that Shirley was going to kill Lelouch, what was Rolo trying to say? No, he didn't say specifically "she wanted to kill you" but you don't chase someone gun in hand (and classified as an enemy) to say howdy (this being Rolo's lie).

B; She was already going on about getting back his happiness, liking him, becoming an ally, and joining him. I doubt Rolo thought she was talking about chess club. It was already pretty clear that she had her memories back. Mentioning Nunnally sealed the deal, and I think it was specifically the fact that she seeked their reunion that got her killed (since if Lelouch and Nunnally were reunited, Rolo would lose Lelouch as a brother). It's unprovable though, so I'll leave that reason out. Westrim (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He assumed she was a threat. He didn't know for sure. Just like he killed the intelligence guy. He didn't have to be sure to do the deed, he just did it because there was a chance. Thus, there is no inherent lie, only how he rationalized it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What they chose to show doesn't bear out that comparison. She said in several forms that she wanted to help. Significantly, they had a cut to her relaxing her grip on the gun and taking her finger off the trigger. He already knew that they had a thing for each other. Everything she did made her less of a threat to Lelouch. Only the statement about Nunally was threatening, and then to Rolo's status, not Lelouch'sWestrim (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying she was going to kill him is jumping to conclusions. Rolo doesn't need that much motivation to see her as a potential threat. She revealed her memories. That's excuse enough. He can't be sure of her intentions. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

?? I didn't say she was going to kill anyone. By status, I meant Rolo's as Lelouch's brother. And again, her statements and releasing the trigger were pretty darn clear as to her intentions. Westrim (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolo isn't the type to take people at face value, Lelouch notwithstanding, otherwise he would simply have asked the intelligence guy he killed if he heard anything. She made herself a threat by carrying a gun and revealing her memories. Her words are meaningless. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, we're at an impasse. You believe that he killed her and genuinely thought her a threat, while I believe that he knew she wasn't a threat and killed her due to her wanting to reunite Lelouch with Nunnaly, which he doesn't want to happen because he wants Lelouch to himself. Why don't we just include both? I'll show you what I mean, just give me til 7:40. Westrim (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One's original research, the other's not. If he thought she was going to kill him, he would have said so. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What's OR? Your basing your reasoning on the incident with the intelligence guy and I'm basing mine on his relationship with Lelouch and established jealousy of any interference with that relationship. Until the producers have an interview and clear that up, both are valid. And I have no idea what your second sentence is referring to.Westrim (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Except my reasoning isn't being added to the article, while you're trying to add yours. What he says makes no inference about her trying to kill him, only that her memories came back and she was chasing him with a gun. Any more is an assumption. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

....People don't chase people with guns to say howdy, especially when memories, including that particular person killing her father, have just returned. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that Rolo was saying that she planned to kill Lelouch, what exactly do you think he meant?Westrim (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point of this. He does not tell him that she was going to kill him, only that she regained her memories and was carrying a gun. The former alone made her a threat, so she was eliminated. He did not lie in any sense of the word nor tell him such in any way. To assume otherwise is original research. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, 3RR applies for the both of us now. Make your point first. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting aggravating. If you were told that someone that you had killed the parent of was chasing you around with a gun, would your assumption be ANYTHING other than that they were trying to kill you? No, Rolo never specifically says the words "she was trying to kill you", but if Lelouch had only what he said to go on, is there ANY OTHER conclusion he would have reached other than that the person chasing him with a gun planned to KILL him. For Gods sake, if they had to spell everything out the show would be no fun at all. As for whether it's a lie or a rationalization, we honestly disagree on our interpretation of that (one being supported by his previous actions, the other by his relationship with Lelouch and what was shown and said in this particular scene) so I left both. Why can't you?Westrim (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As is your inability to comprehend the obvious fact that you're drawing your own conclusion. You cannot do that. You cannot assume what he thought. There is no interpretation allowed. He didn't lie, plain and simple. He didn't spell out the entire event, but he did not lie about what he did. 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And you're misinterpreting nearly everything I say. I never said he lied about what he did, only that I think he lied about his reasons for what he did. Nevertheless, I acknowledged that you thought that the reasons he stated were his only reasons and included that, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is any possibility that there's more than one valid interpretation and instead of working with me just revert every edit I make. Sigh. Look we're both too close to this. Let's just back off and leave the article alone for a week (barring new episodes and vandalism). I'll try to get a third party to take a look (maybe Fallacies?), and we'll revisit this after ep. 18. That okay with you?Westrim (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but you need to realize one thing: what you think is original research without a source to back it up. You think he's lying and you think he meant that Shirley was going kill Lelouch, but that's not what he says. He only says she was carrying the gun and was a threat. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying that you need to come up with a reason a person would chase after someone with a gun other than to kill them.Westrim (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Except I don't have to, because my version is pure fact. Yours is not. However, if you want a reason, I'll give you one. Just because she had the gun did not mean she was going to kill him. There was only the chance that she might kill him, just like there was the chance the intelligence agent Rolo murdered overheard something about Geass. It does not have to be a certainty for him to act, only a possibility. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to make it more clear that it isn't certain whether Rolo knew Shirley wanted to harm Lelouch or not, because the anime doesn't really make this clear. Shirley said she wanted to "protect" Lelouch and she knew there was something dangerous going on in the mall. Therefore she probably took the gun in order to help protect him. It's pretty clear that she actually did love Lelouch, and that she probably didn't want to kill him. The only question in my mind is whether Rolo knew that or not.149.166.32.78 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. We were going to wait, but it seems fate has intervened. I think it looks pretty good, a couple grammar issues aside. What do you think, Rogue Penguin?Westrim (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Same problem. It assumes how he felt, or speculates on it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming by him you mean Rolo and not Lelouch, because that episode makes it really clear that Lelouch did not approve of Rolo killing Shirley. 149.166.34.241 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel vindicated. I need to see the episode subbed before I'll do any editing, but gee, I didn't try to at least write in the possibility that Rolo wanted to kill Nunnally oh, two weeks ago? I called for that ceasefire specifically because I figured they would prove it this episode. I'll accept your apology now, Mr. Penguin. However, I will apologize for my part in ratcheting up the rancor, and later today I'll be making an entry on the genre topic discussion on the Code Geass page. Goodnight.Westrim (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are vindicated, and I gladly admit. Now we have proof, though it is still somewhat supposition to claim the motive persists for both cases. That's a matter of wording, though. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shirley talk

She also made it clear to Lelouch as well that she had regained her memories and still loved him even after starting over twice. That rather sharply contradicts Rolo's "she regained her memories and was following you with a gun"- which yes, was technically true, but a blatant and knowing misrepresentation and omission of her intent. Lelouch certainly knew that, considering his attempt to explode Rolo, and considering the way he thanked Rolo for taking care of her, he knew Rolo was implying she was a threat. Would he have probably wanted to kill Rolo even if he didn't speak with her? Probably, but that he DID speak with her certainly solidified his determination.Westrim (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It still assumes we know his thoughts, so I've shortened it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)