"
Collect, your argument here is both a non-sequitor (the situations are not parallel; other than the fact that photograph is in some way involved in the situation, the circumstances and policy considerations are completely non-analogous) and a strwman argument (as you are refuting a position that no one has endorsed).  Actually, you're discontiguous analogy argues rather persuasively against your position here and provides further evidence of how far out-of-whack it is with the standard Wikipedia approach, since the editors of the article on the Boston Marathon bombing took very much the opposite approach to what you are suggesting we do here.  That article does mention the photograph (point in fact, it has a a whole section largely devoted to it).  They wording of that article doesn't avoid mentioning it (nor does it avoid mentioning that the two men in it were initially reported to be sough by authorities); rather it contextualizes that image based on what reliable sources say about it.   We cover the mistaken reporting in that instance in the same way, because that element of the story also appears in reliable sourcesnot because we fact checked the New York Post ourselves... let's rap "