I agree that Stevietheman's suggestion is the most appropriate to implement. JHP, if you're talking about the 14:54, 27 June 2007 24.209.30.113 (edit #141014976) entry that I reverted, it is because the content was taken directly from the Incidents page without any regard for either (a) including the references themselves, or (b) not following the WP:BLP policy that was taking place over on that page regarding this specific incident.  If you're talking about the 22:32, 2 July 2007 Realkyhick (edit #142152748) entry that I reverted, it's because the entry contained information that was already outdated by information that was updated in the Incidents page, and the link to the Incidents page was also removed by Realkyhick at that time.  If you're talking about your edit #147620955 from the 29th, that was just a copy of the same info from the Incidents page, poorly included, and badly placed in the article  while we all agree that there should be some mention of the incident, including it in the intro section isn't really appropriate either, especially as it (in essence) duplicated information that was posted further down the page.  Yes, I know that you'll disagree with the "in essence" part, but go with me on the concept.  As for an official WP policy, there are guidelines listed in the help section on what makes a good article; I like to think that the Incidents articles fall under WP:BETTER#Articles_covering_subtopics.