I'm not complaining about something I would do.
I would never do what they did, nor rationalize it for them later.
I think you are. I'll explain and 'make up' a similar circumstance so that you can see where I am coming from.
Let's say you give your way of doing things a name. Aikiryu. People doing Aikido come and learn your way of Aiki, your methods of learning etc and you even write a book on it.
Now, because you at the moment travel around or for whatever reason, it doesn't matter really, teach in all manner of places and there are pictures of this in your book doesn't really matter.
Now the editor notices that in one of the pictures it has in the background a sign saying judo. Well he thinks and you agree that may give a confusing idea to some so you edit it out.
After the book has been successful and the way of studying Aiki has become more popular then it is noted that a lot of readers have been asking questions about another sybolic something in the background which leads them to think of some other connection. So in the next edition that is edited out for it's been leading people to think the wrong things.
Later after that edition it is noted that your art is respectful of all martial arts and thus can be practiced by all martial arts and helps those arts actually get better as themselves. So in this third edition the judo sign is put back in in the background.
Simple. It's what happens, it's normal.
Good historians should know this. Therefore those who tell me they were so shocked and surprised that something had been changed shows me they are not as good as they think they are. They should expect it.
Tell me this, if you had a book that was widely read and popular and then after it's second edition it is discovered that the fellow in the picture next to you in a group photo, representing the art was found to be a mass murderer, would you have it edited out of the next edition? Or would you leave it in for 'historical' reasons.