Collect your argument here is both a nonsequitor 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 nonanalogous and a strwman argument as you are refuting a position that no one has endorsed  Actually youre discontiguous analogy argues rather persuasively against your position here and provides further evidence of how far outofwhack 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 doesnt 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