::::::::: The problem here is that NYT won't retract an article that the vast majority of the public sees as "combating evil pedophiles", so no such retraction will ever happen, no matter the evidence against Eichenwald's veracity.  This was a relevant article in NYT a couple of years ago and they're not about to touch it again, even in light of new information.  I think that we, as Wikipedia editors, can do a better job of remaining consistent with current data than traditional newspapers can, and this is a perfect example of an opportunity to do so.  You know as well as I do, that in a time when there's real news happening all over the world, NYT will not bother incorporating this new information in a retraction, but we can.  I think most people involved in this discussion want this article to be accurate, myself included, and given the recently-exposed questionability of Eichenwald's credibility, from fairly reliable sources, we need to give that data some serious reconsideration, even if NYT doesn't consider it worthy of a retraction.