Look at the sources.

There's "Detailed report about a Hungarian expedition" and if you click on the first article, https://web.archive.org/web/20080605115547/http://www.mno.hu... it literally starts with "There are no such people as Magyarabs". Second sentence "The black Hungarians straight out of a romantic grand novel do not exist."

The other reference https://web.archive.org/web/20050213015534/http://w3.datanet... now that's a neonazi rag.

The whole thing started when in the 30s a couple Egyptians decided to bilk a Hungarian noble wandering around there and got rewarmed by a hustler in the sixties who spent two semesters in Cairo then sold himself as an expert back in Hungary in all matters Egyptian and got a posh job for himself at the public radio as such. His Egyptian dictionary was so shit it never got printed, though. Him sharing a name with one of the most famous archeologists didn't hurt his prospects, of course.

Then in the 90s said rag dug up the whole thing again for nationalistic reasons and now people consider it fact despite the expedition that was sent to find them found nothing. Quite obviously.

As for subtlety and for why all your translations are completely pointless can be not found in the Holocaust article https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsid%C3%B3_holokauszt_Magyaror... which, while does paint a picture of cruelty from the Hungarians, almost completely lacks the work of Krisztián Ungváry -- and it's quite important work. It was he who have found in the records that Hungarians sent many more trainloads of Jews than the Germans asked for, so much so the Germans told them to slow down. And now look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriszti%C3%A1n_Ungv%C3%A1ry and tell me, do you see any mention of him being an important Holocaust researcher despite even the Hungarian holocaust article uses him as a source once and uses another article of his as "additional information". (And of course he is only quoted on the forced labor battalions not on the Holocaust itself in Hungary.) Perhaps most importantly, where is https://doi.org/10.1515/9789633861738-007 from this page, not to mention several non-scholarly articles?

What is missing is telling.