Stating my views for the record, per Uday Reddy's suggestion.  
 1) The Reliability of Berti is not in question, and so this blanking is unacceptable. 

 2) this version, which  and myself support, has no OR whatsoever. Specifically, the "Ideology" section is an accurate paraphrasing of the source, and the relevant discussion demonstrates this. AmritasyaPutra has been insisting that anything short of lifting the source text is OR, which is not a policy based position. I would also point out that they took an earlier debate was taken to ORN by AmritasyaPutra, where they were told it was not OR.  

 3) Amritasya's version of the "ideology" section gave the impression that the items mentioned there were isolated incidents and not part of a general philosophy. This had actually been sorted out (more or less) prior to Bladesmulti's blanking.  

 4) This discussion more or less established the need for the qualifier "stated" before mentioning the objective of the organisation. A couple of weeks later, Amritasya removes it again, in an apparent case of tit-for-tat removal.  

 Finally, I posted at INB before Blades made his wholesale removal; until that point, the use of the source, at least, was not questioned. So, if there is no response at INB within the next 24 hours, I will be posting to DRN.