[gavagai691]

My background in philosophy is "studied a decent amount of it in college," so I certainly could be wrong here. But to me the paragraph that you are describing as "just plain wrong" seems relatively measured, consistent with the SEP article, and consistent with what I learned about logical positivism through my philosophy courses and textbooks (e.g., Schwartz's Brief History of Analytic Philosophy, Godfrey-Smith's Theory and Reality, Ney's Metaphysics, Devitt and Sterelny's Language, Truth, and Reality). Here is said paragraph:

"As in most philosophical movements, not all positivists agreed with each other, but they generally agreed that if you couldn’t verify something, it was meaningless."

Here is Ney on positivism (p. 121):

"Logical positivists differ on what verification must involve in any particular case, but a pillar of logical positivism was the view that there are two basic kinds of verification: by analytic and by synthetic methods."

Or Godfrey-Smith (p. 27):

"I turn now to the other main idea in the logical positivist theory of language, the verifiability theory of meaning."

You can also look at Devitt and Sterelny's discussion of verificationism, or the section on logical positivism in Schwartz. They are pretty consistent with the quoted paragraph from Philosophy Bro.