You are just being unbelievably stubborn at this point.  Is this point contentious or not?  You seem to be arguing both sides of that coin.  On the one hand you argue that it is NOT contentious so there should be no reason to object to this wording, but on the other you are NOW arguing that it IS contentious and so this reference is somehow needed for balance.  An obscure reference in a Further Reading section is needed for balance.
Setting the entire LS discussion aside for the moment, you are perfectly aware that it is common practice to consolidate material into one place in the article and the normal rationale is WP:UNDUE.  So regardless of your personal objections to my personal opinions on the subject, why should this reference not be removed because of its obvious redundancy?