Did you read the article?
Not to be flippant, but my knowledge of what quantum physicists think of non-locality and entanglement comes from having been one and having spent numerous years amongst others, many with far more knowledge and talent than I possess... I don't need to read popular press articles to understand my own world, thank you.
On your beef with non-locality
I'm sorry, what beef would that be? My concern is that you do not understand the terms you are using, as evidenced by your swapping and changing from non-locality to entanglement, and back again. And evidenced further by your choice of topic title...
it is a standard term in the literature when discussing entanglement which is a form of non-locality
Of course it can be mentioned, but that does not make the terms interchangable...
Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement
Yep, another 'ta-da' experiment showing that experimental quantum mechanics does indeed behave just like us theorists say it should. Great. Next?
Cutting to the chase, the simple fact is that no form of 'non-locality ' exhibited by quantum mechanics allows for superluminal transfer of information, leaving causality intact. Or from your layman's position, are you suggesting otherwise?