`::::::::: 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.     `