Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen and Shannon. A. Peres in Found. Phys. 35:511 (2005).
Peres was a PhD student of Nathan Rosen (the R in EPR) and as such gets first-hand access to its historical development, which one can find in this paper. He also discusses how Shannon's theory of information is relevant to the dilemma, and how EPR failed to take into account the localization of information, «using no-less than four-times the word "instantaneous", a surprising expression for people who knew very well that this term was undefined in the theory of relativity», but his point is difficult to get across in such a short text. It probably is better defined in Refs. 12-15, in particular Ref. [1] which brings the notion of Lorentz boosts with EPR, something that always bothered me and which I even got a dreamy inkling once of how it was resolving the paradox (probably just an actual dream).
This is the best extract from the paper: ("that work" is the entanglement work in Hydrogen from Rosen)
And comments on Rosen:
Mermin saying the EPR paper is wrong:
It is dedicated to the memory of James Cushing, a philosopher of science. It also comes with other peculiar citations, such as this one:
I had always been fascinated by Einstein, as any normal Jewish boy would be.