I explained pretty much attaching the copies of papers published in European Journal of Human Genetics.

Sample for reference populations were taken from population Reference Sample (POPRES) and  Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) projects. Both projects are widely used in scientific studies.

The graph in the study on Lusatian Sorbs was taken from 'Genes mirror Geography within Europe' (2008) Novembre et al. which was cited around 285 times in other scientific studies. There may be 285 other papers in which the graph was likely referenced. It's a popular study co-authored by John Novembre who published extensively on the subject among other thing such as working on ADMIXTURE software.

Moreover, the study was specific to the population of Lusatian Sorbs. And you should take your concerns to whoever provided the samples to the projects and the editorial board of European Journal of Human Genetics permitting to publish the study.

You should be directing your questions to Polako, Dodecad and MacDonald.

This is what we have:

– German researchers sampling 997 Lusatian Sorbs reducing the sample to 178 with each subject having 4 Lusatian sorbs granparents and all subjects being unrelated.
– A graph from another scientific study being utlised in many scientific studies on which German researchers placed Lusatian Sorbs.

Do you want me to delete one of the few studies on Lusatian Sorbs because of your concerns over the graph?

PS I explicitly stated in the first post of the thread, that this topic is not to prove a point or pick up a fight. I would like to compile a list of published literature on the subject. If you don't like the results in one publication, then find another one.

The fact that this journal published a study in which "the Slovak" clusters with cypatriots really shows the credibility of this journal.

One could also mention they lack a very basic knowledge of geography.