No need for confusion. When you've been around as long as the 1911, you're bound to make a few enemies along the way.
As others have noted, one problem with saying "1911s are unreliable" is that there are so many makers of 1911s. Colt, Ruger, Remington, S&W, RRA, RIA, STI, ATI, Springfield, Kimber, DW, .....Then let's throw in that any of those manufacturers could be making them in 9mm, .38 Super, .45, 10 mm, etc., and that they could be making them in different barrel lengths. So "1911s are unreliable" is an truly, awfully broad statement.
FWIW, my experience with 1911s is (by comparison to many other members) limited. I've only owned 3, but one was my carry gun for 3-4 years. As you might imagine, I shot that one quite a bit. Well, quite a bit for me.
There is nothing wrong with the 1911 design. It's not inherently unreliable. With that said, I do think it takes a little more TLC to keep it running right than an MPSFP (modern, polymer, striker-fired pistol). The 1911 was born in an age when men were expected to perform basic maintenance on machines all the time. Tractors, factory equipment, tools, etc. So my theory is that JMB would simply have expected men (who would have been the majority of users) to have the skills to clean & lube a pistol, and that they would do so with some regularity. (That's my theory, anyway. I have no evidence to back it up.) The 1911 that I carried is a beast in terms of reliability. She'll eat anything and come back for seconds. And she tolerates a little benign neglect very well. So does my Glock. But when I clean them ..... The 1911 is definitely a more involved process.
There will always be "those guys" who think you should buy a Glock, just no matter what. Those Guys were part of the reason I refused to buy a Glock for ~25 years. If you want the DW, buy the DW.