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