I don’t expect much in terms of accuracy from these sources, as they’re usually biased and exaggerate, or even distort, the facts to serve their own agenda. I've edited on Wikipedia for years, believe me, the kind of biases that go on there will blow your mind. Because misinformation is a type of irregular warfare. The strategy of 'throw S**t, if it doesn't stick, it'll leave a mark' always works. Let’s me give you ''a little history'' about the Ottoman-Hungarian relations you mentioned, and get into a bit of reality.
The Hungarian leader Hunyadi made an agreement with the Turks after battle and while the Turks were fighting the east, he brought a Christian army (Crusade) to confront the Turks to be kicked out. In the end, he was defeated, and Ottomans forced overyears subdue Hungary to Turkish rule. The same thing happened with the Byzantine Empire — while the Turks were fighting the Fatimids, the Byzantines betrayed their agreement, attacked from behind, and laid siege to Malazgirt(Manzikert), leading to their complete destruction.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some fool nationalist. When it comes to history, I prefer to discuss things with reliable sources, not oversimplified or biased narratives.
Let’s also remember that Turks and Hungarians share the same roots, tracing back to
Attila the Hun. Despite this shared heritage, and the fact that the Turkish military is currently supporting Hungary’s armed forces, some people still hold onto animosity toward Turks. It’s not difficult to understand, especially given the historical context.
Ohh one more thing.
Just a few years ago, they released a Kentucky Gun Range video claiming it was Turkey's attack. WTF, according to these sources, the Turkish army has a bunch of Rambos or so?