:To follow up what Beagel says above, after the incorrect details were removed some changes were made to the existing Caspian Sea section that have introduced some new wording. I would like to ask for other editors to review this wording and adjust it, as they feel necessary, since I believe it introduces POV into the section.  

 :The section originally stated: 

 ::According to US Embassy cables, BP had been "exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information" and revealed that BP thought the cause for the blowout was a bad cement job. 

 :It now reads: 

 ::According to US Embassy cables, BP had been "exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information" In January 2009, BP blamed a bad cement job as the cause for the incident. The Guardian noted a striking resemblance with the later oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  

 :The Guardian note is completely new and essentially anachronistic, since there could be no comparison with Deepwater Horizon at the time. This wording also makes the comparison between the events without explaining why the two were thought by the Guardian to be similar events, and seems to imply that the Caspian Sea event had a greater impact than it actually did.  

 :Secondly, the wording about the potential reason for the leak now does not seem neutral. To say "BP blamed" sounds as though an excuse was being made, rather than that BP had been looking into the cause and stated they believed it to be the cement. Please can other editors here look at these two changes in wording and adjust or remove them? Thanks.