Want more? Check the article on the Hungarian conquest: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honfoglal%C3%A1s and search for the word "genetika". It's genetics in Hungarian. Archaeogenetics has been painting a very interesting and rather different picture compared to the traditions and there is not. a single. mention. of. this. Absolutely nothing! This research has been ongoing since 2008, it's not like it's too new. It also forgets to mention the heavy source criticism work being done in a similar time frame -- of course it does because it would show the entire thing is a gigantic "maybe". By now we know what we actually know solidly is extremely little. And yes, all this is heavily debated right now among historians but shouldn't this debate be at least mentioned? The sources listed have books from the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, it's hardly a surprise their accuracy is not the greatest....

You can check either https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A9pes_kr%C3%B3nika or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_Pictum for any mentions of the uncomfortable truth that this is more a medieval comics than any valid source of history. Once again, even if you consider this debatable -- to be frank, it's not -- it really should be mentioned the historicity of this is heavily questionable.

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Wass to https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wass_Albert . The English one at least talks at length of why he was sentenced to death as a war criminal and what happened later but in the Hungarian one? Almost all of that is missing. Needless to say, the current regime and even further right elements valorize him.

Ps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carp... is full of discussion of genetics and archeogenetics.