I think here is the only slight misconception in your article. It’s not really debated that there is fast-than-light influence. It’s proven by the test of bell inequalities that this influence actually happens and it’s also clear that this influence can’t transmit any information. Hence even with entangled pairs, no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
The two things over which one still debates (philosophically) is somehow contained in your statement #2. What the violation of bell inequalities show is the absence of local realism.
Now let’s to try to decipher that. Local means that one object can not be in two places at the same time. But this is exactly one way you can interpret an entangled pair — it’s just one object which is in two locations at the same time and so when you measure at one location it influences the other, simply because it’s one and the same thing which is in these two places.
Realism means that objects possess properties independent of them being measured. The absence of realism is another way of interpreting an entangled pair (and which you put in parenthesis in your point #2) : before measuring one part of the pair, the whole thing was not determined and so in a way reality was defined just in the instant the measurement happened.
Which one of the two is the right way of seeing it or a bit of both is still unclear — we only know that our world is not local and real at the same time.