The problem here is that NYT wont 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 Eichenwalds veracity  This was a relevant article in NYT a couple of years ago and theyre 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 theres 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 recentlyexposed questionability of Eichenwalds credibility from fairly reliable sources we need to give that data some serious reconsideration even if NYT doesnt consider it worthy of a retraction