To cut through some of the drama that risks being amplified by profiles like this, here are Schmidhuber's [1] and Goodfellow's [2] papers, plus the NIPS reviews [3] that recognized the linkage (not equivalence) between the two.

This is the review process working as it should: helping situate work in a longer dialog so that readers can follow a chain of reasoning. Much of the rest of the drama discussed in this article is about allocating the celebrity that manifests when a technique suddenly becomes useful, through some combination of changes to the environment, theoretical improvements and reduction to practice. It's a very human concern, but it's more business (or politics) than science.

[1] ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/factorial.pdf [2] http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5423-generative-adversarial-nets... [3] http://media.nips.cc/nipsbooks/nipspapers/paper_files/nips27...