They picked the sources, and their sources use apparently arbitrary dates that are particularly unrepresentative. Maybe that's just an unfortunate coincidence, but even if so, the net effect is the same as cherry-picking.

Well, no it's not. Because if they were cherry-picking, then your needling them repeatedly over the data could actually produce a reaction that gets you more accurate data.

But since they are just presenting you with the most commonly available data, nothing you say will make them produce different results.

It's the first result and there aren't very many results. That's not cherry-picking on my end.