Yes, I made sure to highlight that this was the (unreliable) source, consider it an invitation for the history buffs to chime in.

Food for thought: if I had posted the very first source available on Google as authorative, with no actual knowledge of my own to make the claim, that could be more misleading on aggregate, right?

Agreed, it's not so much where you find the source, but the source itself. Unquestioningly taking "first result" is just as bad as taking anything from an LLM and representing it as a factual answer. Also, kagi generally has higher quality search results (that can be checked).