https://upgrade.scientolipedia.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Thread%3AUser_talk%3ARolf_dane%2FBlanking_the_DEEP_Clearing_article%2Freply_%282%29Thread:User talk:Rolf dane/Blanking the DEEP Clearing article/reply (2) - Revision history2026-06-12T16:24:29ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.25.3https://upgrade.scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Thread:User_talk:Rolf_dane/Blanking_the_DEEP_Clearing_article/reply_(2)&diff=17463&oldid=prevDl88008: Reply to Blanking the DEEP Clearing article2015-09-01T21:23:41Z<p>Reply to <a href="/index.php?title=Thread:User_talk:Rolf_dane/Blanking_the_DEEP_Clearing_article/reply" title="Thread:User talk:Rolf dane/Blanking the DEEP Clearing article/reply">Blanking the DEEP Clearing article</a></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>I understand your wanting to distance yourself from what you see as a toxic brand, but the request compromises our integrity. If we alter or delete factual data about derivative practices of Scientology to appease people, we become less credible.<br />
<br />
I have spoken with Antony and was waiting to hear from you before deciding about restoring the page.<br />
<br />
We have to consider whether it is important to document ALL of the offshoots, SOME of the offshoots, or NONE of the offshoots. Do we post a disclaimer that SOME offshoots wish to remain anonymous due to the church's abuse of the brand? Maybe that is the solution...</div>Dl88008