It's called science, as in providing a reasonable explanation for the data.<quoted text>
Summary statements about data are not the data. A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data. The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid.
It requires interpretation of the data.
All sites shown, have data and we even provided links to books that teach the method for gathering reliable data, how to understand the gathered data, and how to present it. As well as when artefacts and false data can occur.
So nothing get's thrown out as you suggest but wold be anomalous data that needs an explanation.
And basicly this entire line of bringing up 4500 BP is based on an example Dogen provided to explain the statistical method and when it is perceived as reliable. Not on the actual paper on the cheetah bottle neck.
I guess you forgot that.