I think that one of the confounding issues is what to name what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." The idea of action involves the application of some force over some amount of time, and our ordinary idea of "causing something" involves exerting force on some system to influence its behavior. But entanglement is exhibited without the lag that would be required were interactions at a velocity ≤ c, so something is going on that is not "causal" in the usual sense. On the other hand, before one or the other entangled twin particles is measured, they both have the freedom or the potential to manifest either spin, and after one of them is measured and must manifest a spin then the other no longer has the freedom or potential to manifest any spin other than the opposite of the one that was first measured. So something has changed, and it strikes me as creating an intellectual smokescreen to say that there is only some kind of abstract "correlation" involved. Like the "collapse" of a wavefunction, we have no idea of what is going on or how to describe it. All we know is that it happens. It also strikes me as possibly significant that the time sequence may not be clear. From my frame of reference, electron A is observed first, and electron B is observed second. Someone else, in another frame of reference, may see electron B as being observed first and electron A as being observed second. There are also phenomena within the same frame of reference that we call retrocausal. We have no way of knowing that the discovery of the polarity of photon B at time T+n determines, retrocausally, the polarity of photon A at time T. If we say that these changes are not local, that must  (I think) mean that they are not local in space-time. So, in a sense, I end up arguing against my own discomfort with the idea that there is "only" a correlation between the discovered states of any entangled twins. 

If you are finding what I just wrote confusing, imagine what the whole discussion will do to someone who has just heard an intriguing mention of quantum physics on TV and has come to Wikipedia for more information. We need to be very careful to make our vocabulary and explanations such that our article can be processed by such readers. Lack of appropriate words is a big challenge.