Talk:Murder of Joseph Augustus Zarelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chimerean[edit]

It is possible the daughter in the foster house is a Chimerean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics). They have to do another DNA test.

Ethnicity[edit]

Some note should be made on his ethnicity. He had blue eyes and the long head made them think he was probably Nordic or close to it (Brit, etc). Cake (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement[edit]

Before the change is made to move the image of the crime scene above the infobox, an agreement needs to be made. Several other editors have disagreed with this formatting, including me. I'm open to talk about it as long as the discussion remains civil. --GouramiWatcherTalk 15:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boy in the Box (Philadelphia). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boy in the Box (Philadelphia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible that genitals are showing[edit]

the picture of the boy in the box when found looks like you can see his genitals in the picture. 64.66.220.230 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fold of the blanket. --Auric talk 10:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has been Identified[edit]

Will be released next werk 2601:188:C680:7A80:899D:EFEE:2A24:EE87 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

with a heavy heart I look forward to the article name change…2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:F0A4:F73C:C6F6:13F4 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask "shouldn't this article just be named "Boy in the Box"? Philadelphia is redundant, as this is the primary topic.." Then of course I reminded myself that this article will be re-named in due course anyway...at long last.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources state that he was the child of a prominent family in Delaware County, Pennsylvania." Emphasis added. Need to keep an eye on the investigation, I fear it might be desultory, considering the words I bolded in the quote. If so, I'd like us to say so. OTOH the principles are surely dead by now, and it depends on various factors, we could well get a thorough investigation, you never know. To be continued. Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was very surprised that the family and other "details" were not disclosed. Perhaps these were omitted just to get the actual name public asap. I have seen at least one good theory on the web, but a good theory on the web is not good enough for Wikipedia - so let's wait until more details are made public. By "good theory" I mean several details seem to match with the official announcement, some seem to contradict it. But I'd expect another announcement in either case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change article name back to Boy in the Box[edit]

That still seems to be the common name going around. If he becomes better known as his real name, then we can keep the current title. Thoughts? Bremps 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as the correct redirects are in place, it doesn't super matter. It's an interesting case. Almost all existing sources use "Boy in the box", this is true. However, in this case for my part it's worthwhile to make an exception and use the name. For one thing, proper name will likely rapidly become more common in sources -- already is. For another, I don't see a problem with readers searching on "boy in the box" being taken to an article with this title; it's informative... his name, and that it is known, is super important. People searching on "boy in the box" are presumably coming from old sources; it is true that principle of least surprise is served by using that title for the article (if they are still the plurality -- they certainly aren't for this month, and probably never will be again IMO). But they'll live, and mostly the article title will be useful I guess. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Bremps 15:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death[edit]

"It is believed by both police and public opinion that the cause of death was blunt force trauma". Including the police opinion makes sense, but public opinion? The court of public opinion should have no place in this or anything else. 166.196.103.31 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, even if it is in the source (dunno, we are not allowed to have TV here), the source is just some talking head. Maybe they meant something like "the opinion of others who have studied the matter", but since I can't see the source I don't know. So per your point I simply removed it, thanks for the tip. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Martha or “M?”[edit]

What happened to the woman whom called herself Martha, who proposed the very promising theory of the child being murdered by her mother?

2600:8804:A01:7A00:18D6:848B:B4F1:D650 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a bad theory now. How did Martha get all the details right ? Including that the child was *not* listed as a missing person...

We will have to wait and see. The investigators will reveal more of their findings, which will either confirm or disprove any connection with this Martha person. For now they have not commented on it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that most active genealogy types would take a specific interest in this story. And there is no doubt many people have used the clues released by police along with what's in this article to locate the family in the various censuses and other databases.
I did. And I found what the various forensic folks already know. The only concern I have regarding my own understanding is if the boy was born, or died, a Zarelli, given the entries from 'M'/'Martha' about a 'Jonathan'. I found a likely candidate for 'M' if the case is as I understand.
The release of the information last week marked the first time I had ever heard of this case. My son is four. The pain and grief for this child struck me like a bolt of lightning. It became most of my Thursday. As horrific as this story reads, I have somewhat of a bright, gleaming, silver-lined cloud. Maybe, even, a huge one. No matter our beliefs, this child's energy--his 'life force', transmuted into a gloriously gigantic impact on society at large. Aside from the many investigators who spent their whole lives trying to track this down, how many parents hugged and kissed their children a hundred times more than usual the next time they saw them--and for the rest of their lives? Might it be that the spirit of this child lives on in a very real sense? The ancient Greeks, or so I understand, had a concept of immortality described as 'living on the lips of your countrymen'. From my own experience, I will testify to the absolute, axiomatic truth of this force.
In his brutal and senseless death, Joseph Augustus Zarelli transcended time and space to become a massive force for good and love. My son received a tight hug, a few extra kisses and a lot more attention on Friday morning--directly from Joseph 71.69.191.27 (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m interested in how you reconciled M with the current I for? I do think that is where the investigation is heading considering that the investigators said that they found a piece of clothing near th crime scene and they were running additional test on it. 70.110.139.152 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that talk pages are not a forum for discussing the topic, but instead places to discuss improving the article. Speculating on our own theories is outside of the scope of this project. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert name to original per WP:COMMONNAME[edit]

The title should be reverted back to "Boy in the box", as per WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources call it "The Boy in the Box"; this new title was created solely for use on Wikipedia. 108.48.97.70 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your assertion, you believe that the title should be reverted to its earlier form.
My opinion of what is correct and right agrees with Herostratus above; "... his name, and that it is known, is super important."
I hate to use the phrase 'putting the boy back in the box'. It's part cliche and just seems cheap. But if I told you I devoutly believed in the massive importance of this boy's name, would it make a difference? What if I stated that I think humanity requires we not let this boy continue to be defined as an anonymous thing?
Perhaps there are cases when rules are set not by pure logic and adherence to form--when the rules of decency, respect and humanity eclipse attempts at legalistic definitions. I, for one, say that such is certainly the case and that this case is the archetype of the deference each of us would expect to receive in similar circumstances.
Let his name fly at the top of the mast--above all the arbitrary laws, rules and flags. Honor his name. 71.69.191.27 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
whatever you say ig? --108.48.97.70 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Joseph_Augustus_Zarelli&oldid=1209421780"