"I cut more than connect, and mostly as descendants notice the problems."
I can appreciate that, Erica. You're probably aware that I've done some cutting on my own tree, even on areas that are relatively popular (sorry, I sometimes can't resist making puns). I pushed for cutting the Basque ancestry for John Sevier, simply because it was incorrectly represented on his tree, and no other reason. The man really was a Basque Huguenot of well-known noble ancestry, imho. But there were duplicates of his ancestors, and having the fake one connected to him was so wrong I couldn't stand it. I've also corrected a few names, even identities, here and there on various parts of my tree that are very familiar to me (:D).
But I always open discussion and give fair warning ahead of time, on 'famous' ancestors (Sevier, Gano, Scudder, etc.). And only after I am reasonably certain there will be no problems with other close members of the family do I proceed with the changes. I am never in a rush, or secretive, about what I do with them, if I think it might affect someone enough to cause contention or friction among us. It's not THAT important to me, because Geni is not the only way to create and preserve my family tree.
And I generally would only consider cutting or making major corrections on my own direct ancestry (grandparents, usually, unless I have excellent data for all of their children, most of which comes from either census reports or family bibles, etc.). I would cut more, but do not want to step on the toes of the well-meaning people who created some of the unsourced profiles of my slightly more distant relatives (cousins, aunts and uncles, etc.), even when I suspect they might be wrong. Because they might be connections to living people, I want to respect their beliefs about their family tree. Although presumably I share it with them, indirect lines don't affect me that much, and I have to admit that others more closely related probably know much more than I about it.
I don't understand why anyone would add random unsourced or unexplained profiles to trees where they have no blood connection at all. Or why anyone would make cuts on trees where they're not personally related (or perhaps do not wish to be). I could understand it if they have a good source or logical reason and are willing to politely share it with the World.
Anyway, yesterday I finally got around to exporting my work from here, so that I can work on it on my own and not feel in danger of upsetting anyone or insulting their work, causing confusion, etc. And the FIRST thing I did after transferring my tree was to cut out the wife and ancestors of Francis Gano (whose name I'd corrected not too long ago, with curator assistance and basically 'permission' from other family members, or at least fair warning of my intentions). I cut those profiles because I've done the research and now I know beyond shadow of doubt that they are wrong here. I just don't want to make waves or hurt any feelings, and that is always a concern for me. But it bothers me anyway, and I felt compelled to correct it on my own private tree.
In the future, I plan on doing all of my preliminary, 'experimental' work on my private tree, until I have sufficient evidence (and courage) to attempt making the corrections here. I feel it is best that way because of the sheer volume of work that needs to be done on it. I've mostly neglected recording my family history up until fairly recently, while others (some claiming to be "genealogists") have had a field day with it :D
However back to the main point, I wouldn't think of cutting any tree that has no blood relationship to me personally. And while I'm not authorized to change much in the historical or ancient lines that allegedly are my ancestors, I often find problems with it as well (duplicates, unsourced extra children and wives without so much as any explanation for them). Personally I would focus more on those obvious problems, and leave the controversial ones (such as Ripsime, Junca, and the various ancient European noble families) alone. Whenever there is THAT much protest coming from intelligent and honest subscribers over the cutting of a line, I think it ought to be left alone. I personally would leave them alone out of respect for them -- unless I had sufficient evidence to disprove the connection, or to correct it.
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. And I have a tremendous respect for ancient profiles that are strongly supported by *tradition or in *literature, if nothing else. I wouldn't touch what has been established for centuries or millennia, unless I actually found sound evidence to disprove or correct it. I wouldn't even think of cutting profiles of royals who lived in pre-historical times and times of extreme social upheavals (wars, plagues, famines, dearths of technology needed for record-keeping), such as the early Middle Ages -- based on lack of "Primary Source Documentation".
That's a quick and all too easy way to obliterate the little bit that we know about our human past. If those historical figures cannot be represented here, then people like me will go somewhere else where they are represented and honored properly. The sad irony is that I actually learned about many of them right here, in this wonderful community of descendants.
But I understand if that is the standard policy you are compelled to abide by. I'm not going to fight it, I will just try to work around it for my own sake and peace of mind.