Well, to respond to your question directly, i would mention Editorial commentary (..) are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Or the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value. But be it that or be it mentioning WP:BIASED was here more for the form, i have never really understood the foundation of this being here. My question therefore would be, why are you opposing the correction of an unsourced, unsigned and incorrect as per its own definition piece of information? it can not even be referred to as a controversy since it is absolutely not a state of prolonged public dispute or debate... so, what is the reason you would find this is a correct encyclopedic information?