# Talk:Hunyadi family

May I alert you to the fact that the map subtitled ‘The wars and conquests of Matthias Corvinus’
contains the date 1784 associated with a yellow coloured arrow, pointing at Temesvár, showing an ‘Ottoman invasion’ (I would use the word incursion rather than ‘invasion’ to denote the movement of Ottoman troops). Please correct the typographic error. Thank you. Magister P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.141 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) 

User:Borsoka I appreciate your edits here, it would be great if you would bring Hunyadi family to GA status in the future, like you did with several articles before. 
I noticed the following formula in the added text: [...] knight Vajk (who is known as Voicu in Romanian historiography [...] and I was wondering if you changed your opinion expressed at Talk:John_Hunyadi/Archive_5#Father.27s_name (where you said Personally, I would delete the "Vajk" version, even it is based on Cambride History. It is totally anachronistic and makes an artificial connection between the late 10th-century pagan name of the future Saint Stephen I of Hungary and the late 14th-century name of Hunyadi's father.). Or it is just a error that you did not observe? 79.117.184.91 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your message. No, I only insist on the version provided by reliable sources. The "Voicu" form is also anachronistic. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, Voicu is the Romanianized version of the name, in the same extent as Vajk is a Hungarianized name. I am confused about your phrasing ("Vajk (who is known as Voicu in Romanian historiography"), which seems to imply that Vajk is the "real" name , while Voicu is the altered name.
I think we must seek a compromise regarding Ro and Hu names on this kind of articles (where Hu soreces use Hu names and Ro sources use Ro names), in order not to create a mess.86.126.35.40 (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the method of duplicating his name would be funny, therefore I suggest that we use the neutral form Voyk. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree to your proposal. I also think Radul (the form that I found in the original donation charter from 1409) should be preferred over Radol (the name used in Hu hisoroography); the Ro historiography uses the variant Radu. 79.117.174.50 (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the earliest source (1409) about the Hunyadi family: ".....servitiorum preclaris meritis Woyk filii Serbe aule nostre militis per ipsum nostre Maiestati....." "....baronum nostrorum consilio ac nove nostre donationis titulo et omni eo jure, quo eadem ad nostram spectant, memorato Wo(y)k militi et per eum Magas et Radol....." ".....carnalibus ac Radol patrueli fratribus...." [1] Fakirbakir (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A higher resolution of the document: [2], if you learnt medieval graphology. :) --188.143.79.20 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not get it. Why do you think the earliest source used the "Radul" form? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir I admit my mistake, I had the impression that Radul was the original variant. But I guess that we should also use Woyk instead of Vojk. 79.117.174.50 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should. I hope Borsoka can help us to solve this problem. I have found another (quite old) source about the same charter and its spelling is different.[3] So I am very unsure. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess that is a spelling mistake, the rest of sources use the form Woyk. There is also an 1435 act cotaining the text: «Egregius JOHANNES dictus OLAH, filum condam Woyk de Hunyad aule nostre miles» [4] 79.117.174.50 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Name. We should prefer the form used in English literature. We could choose between Vajk or Voyk (see the list of referenced books). I think the latter is more neutral. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Borsoka what do you think about the content of the Vajk (given name) article? Is it right to say that Stephen I of Hungary and J.H's father had the same name, given that in 15th century documents the latter one's name is spelled Woyk or Voyk? Avpop (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I do not know anything of the assumed connection between the two names. (Actually, we know that St Stephen's original name was Voic, because this form was recorded by Thietmar of Merseburg. Borsoka (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

John's title is a bit confusing. Was he a governor or a regent?  According to the article of Regent of Hungary, the "regent" title was established only in 1920 (however its subsections mention Hunyadi). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

He was regent of Hungary with the title "governor" (Engel 2001, p. 288). :) Actually, I think sooner or later a separate article should be written for the Governors of Hungary (Hunyadi, Horthy and two others). Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

1405 or 1406 here, and 1407 in John Hunyadi article. 86.126.32.215 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your above remark. The two dates are fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hunyad Castle (in present-day Hunedoara, Romania), after which the family was named" is not precise.

"Corvin Castle was laid out in 1446" (from Corvin Castle article)
John Hunyadi's father also was called "Woyk de Hunyad" (see source) 79.117.174.50 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Only the current Renaissance-styled Hunyad Castle was laid out in 1446. The family was named after the Hunyad estate, received in 1409. de Hunyad = Hunyadi. --188.143.79.20 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the above remarks. I modified the description of the picture. The Latin "Woyk de Hunyad" means "Voyk Hunyadi". Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hunyadi family article also contains the phrase On this day, Sigismund granted Hunyad Castle (in present-day Hunedoara, Romania) and the lands pertaining to it to his court knight Voyk and to Voyk's four kinsmen. implying that the castle existed in 1409. 79.117.163.9 (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a castle existed there already in 1409. The case is very similar to that of Buda Castle which was erected in the 1250s, but was continuously rebuilt and rebuilt till the 1900s. We cannot create separate articles for the Buda Castle in 1251, in 1252, in 1253, .... in 2014. :) Borsoka (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If a castle existed before 1409, the History section of Corvin Castle article should be updated, cause currently it affirms that "Corvin Castle was laid out in 1446" 86.127.31.188 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

According to http://asztrorege.blogspot.ro/2010_10_01_archive.html John Pongrácz of Dengeleg (who had the dignity of Voivode of Transylvania) was the son of George Pongrácz of Dengeleg. 
Also Marina is another sister of John Hunyadi mentioned by Nicolaus Olahus in his work Hungaria 
86.127.22.113 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am planning to add his sister to the family tree. However, I do not understand why should we add all his nephews, great-nephews, nieces, .... etc. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
John Pongrácz of Dengeleg was the cousin Matthias Crovinus and held the important rank of Voivode of Transylvania, I consider he is worth mentioning. 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.20.244 (talk) 
Thanks. He is now mentioned in a note, together with his brother. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Borsoka - can you please tell me in what document is Anikó Branicskai mentioned? Thanks in advance. 79.117.172.15 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Kubunyi says, she is mentioned in a "document" of 1429 (Kubinyi 2008, p. 10). Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure Kubinyi says she was Radol's wife? This site refers to a woman named Anko who was was Vojk Jr's  widow and whose name appears in a 1429 manuscript. 79.117.179.132 (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, her name is fixed. Kubinyi writes: "A document issued in 1429 refers to Ankó Brancsikai (Barincskai), the widow of László Vajk Hunyadi. Ankó Brancsikai appears to have been married to Radol-László, who bore the name of his more distinguished elder brother Vajk in his family name. (An alternative view is that hte document simply failed to indicate László as the brother of Vajk.)" (Kubinyi 2008, p. 10) Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the original name from the Latin document did not contain any accent (just Anko, without ó) [5] 86.127.27.202 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is apparent. However, the reliable written in English which is cited uses the "ó" form. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Pop is also a reliable author and he uses the form Anca [6] 86.127.25.211 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
In a book written in Romanian. Kubinyi's work is published in English. Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It has been also translated to English :) [7] 86.127.10.96 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We can assume that Pop's Anca is identical with Kubinyi's Ankó Brancsikai, but we do not know. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Here and here there are other Hu-language sources which uses the name Anko, without accent. 79.117.183.47 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a book written in Hungarian. I do not insist on the accent, but books written either in Hungarian or in Romanian can hardly substantiate English usage against a peer-reviewed book published in English. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I added this but I got an error. Can someone please help me? Also, I don't know the isbn of the book. Avpop (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The proper English-language term for "Vlach" is "Wallachian". "Vlach" is a foreignism that does not exist outside of an academic context. I do not know how things work in other languages, but in English, the term is Wallachian, and that's that. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of English, but I guess that, for instance, John V. A. Fine Jr, who uses the term Vlach many times in his books, knows the proper terminology. Wallachia was a principality in the territory of present-day Romania. Its inhabitants were obviously Wallachians. However, Vlachs, or Romanians, lived/live in many other regions, including Moldavia, Transylvania, Banat, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thessaly... Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hunyadi family/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written 
a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article is wonderfully written. I found a few sentence or grammar mistakes which I corrected myself as I read the article.
Verifiable with no original research 
a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
c. It contains no original research

The article mostly uses book or journal sources which are referenced with Harvard templates. All the sources contain the necessary information.
Broad in its coverage 
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is very broad in its coverage, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.
Neutral 
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not included personal opinions or statements.
Stable 
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable and its content does not change significantly from day to day (edits made in the face of the GA-nomination will be ignored). Neither is there any edit wars or content disputes.
Illustrated 
a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is nicely illustrated with eight images all of which contain the necessary information.
Pass, fail or hold? 
With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm of course going to pass it. Nice job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "extended" coat of arms mean in this context? Combined? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the Hunyadis' coat-of-arms (depicting a raven) was extended in 1453 by a new shield. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Anon, can you verify that this family, which had extensive domains in the whole Kingdom of Hungary (including Transylvania, Slavonia and Hungary proper) could not be mentioned as "Hungarian"? Please remember, that John Hunyadi was governor of Hungary, his son, Matthias was crowned king of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@123Steller:, :@Norden1990:,
I think the issue is a bit tricky, since if you edit the infobox, the current paramater is called "nationality", but what is displayed is "ethnicity", although the two is not necessarily identical in general. As a nationality (= modern citizenship or self-declaration or allegiance) of the Hunyadi family, is undoubtedly Hungarian. Regarding ethnicity, the issue is colored and has many uncertaintes, better only more accepted or adopted versions. So I think for resolution first a solution should be found fo the infobox parameter, since I saw other pages where the nationality and ethniciy may be separated.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
It is true that the word nationality is polysemous, but the displayed word is the one that matters ("ethnicity"). According to most contemporary sources,it was a noble family of Romanian ancestry. I think Borsoka also agrees with the current version. 123Steller (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bruhsmillah: yes, the family was likely of Romanian origin, but this is only a theory. The theories about the family's origin are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. We cannot present a scholarly theory as a fact as per WP:NOR. Please also avoid adding content that is not verified in the allegedly cited source ([8]). Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bruhsmillah: please read our policy on edit warring and discuss your concerns on the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bruhsmillah: why do you think we should mention twice in the lead that the family was likely of Wallachian origin. Perhaps you want to discuss the issue here instead of edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

[9] I arranged the members in chronological order the lead and removed duplication regarding Matthias and John Corvinus. Someone may check if all the information are presented correctly

"Matthias Corvinus, was King of Hungary from 1458 until 1490, King of Bohemia (ruling in Moravia, Lower Lusatia, Upper Lusatia, and Silesia) from 1469 until 1490, and Duke of Austria from 1487 until 1490."
was duplicated in the lead with
"Matthias ruled Moravia, Silesia, Austria, and other neighbouring regions."

{Ping|Gyalu22}} at least two historians cited in the article - Kubinyi and Pop - mentions him as Magos in works published in English. Why do you think that we should choose an alternative form (Magas) based on a copy of the Latin text of a medieval charter? Why do you think the copy does not contain a typo? Furthermore, WP prefers secondary sources to primary sources when editing. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Do they? I read that Pop calls him Magas. (Probably it's just the translation.) Rásonyi also. The source I cited leads to the official Latin text, but it calls the person Magas in the whole work. I don't know why do you keep calling it primary. Here's another source: https://www.academia.edu/44358676/Lupescu_Radu_Matthias_Hunyadi_from_the_Family_Origins_to_the_Threshold_of_Power Gyalu22 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Read again the first page of Pop's text, it uses the Magos form. Radu Lupescu Magyarizes the names: Vajk, Erzsébet. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, I see he does on page 1. On page 8 he says Magas, however.
I don't know how can we reach a point here. Kubinyi knocks out Rásonyi, doesn't he? Probably, but Rásonyi's work was published by the Akadémiai Kiadó. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I guess, Magas is the modern form of Magos. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
So? Do you think it should be written as Magos or Magas? Gyalu22 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think Magos is the authentic form. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Publications of Akadémiai Kiadó are better reviewed and translated. Balassi doesn't look that good to me. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: Ok, what exactly are you trying to achieve? For one, the "Helyon genetic study" is the same study as the one from here so I don't see your reason for replacing the reference and adding the same study again. Then, the Corvinus genome is E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c as explained in the study, this is on the E-V13 branch, also as stated in the study itself ("...both sample belonged to: E1b1b1a1b1a6a1∼; E-CTS9320. The same sublineage of E-V13 (E1b1b1a1b1a)..."). The E-V13 branch as explained at E-V13 originated in the Balkans so it is the "Balkan branch", the eupedia.com source is used just to further add to it with "Examples of founder effects include E-V12 in southern Egypt, E-V13 in the Balkans". Finally, the note just explains what the "ancient European genome composition" means. So, what's the problem? Alin2808 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alin2808,
Originally I added that genetic content to the article with the Helyon source, I do not know why it is changed but the genetic study was published in the Helyon, as you can see the PubMed Central also refers to the Helyon one which is the main source (Q1 ranked top 1 scientic journal).
My issue is that you added content what is not in the published source.
Before: "aaa, bbb(helyonsource)" = Content "aaa" and "bbb" is from (helyonsource)
After your edit: "aaa, xxx(yoursource), bbb(helyonsource)" Which is incorrent, because in the reality, content "aaa" does not belong to your source, and you marked that content "aaa" with your source.
I also do not know why you call it "Balkan branch", it is clearly not in the genetic study. We need follow the academic sources not by personal imaginations.
Your provided sources this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#V13 Here I also do not see that this haplogroup called as "Balcanian branch", you can see the haplogroup spreaded everywhere, for example in Czechia, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Bosnia, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine (almost in Austria, in Germany) is same (same amount of people have this haplogroup today in those countries). According to that map today this haplogroup the most frequent is in Kosovo. Should we call it Kosovo branch? I do not think so. The genetic science is new, as we have more samples and better technology, it is changing and the results will be more clear. The Helyon study and this website also list many areas and history of this haplogroup, even they admit the Balcanian origin is outdated: "For many years the vast majority of academics have assumed that E-V13 and other E1b1b lineages came to the Balkans from the southern Levant via Anatolia during the Neolithic, and that the high frequency of E-V13 was caused by a founder effect among the colonisers."
Helyon: "The E-M78 haplogroup may have been formed about 13,400 years ago (Adamov et al., 2015). Remains belonging to the E-M78 subgroup, dating from about 7000 years ago, were discovered in Avellaner cave, Spain (Lacan et al., 2011). Another E-M78 sample from the Sopot culture was found in Hungary (5000-4800 BCE) (Szécsényi-Nagy, 2015). This indicates that E-M78 men most likely arrived with Neolithic farmers from the Fertile Crescent to Europe and even Asia (Battaglia et al., 2009). Within a few centuries, haplogroup E-V13 became one of the most widespread male lineages in Europe, reaching far beyond the borders of Europe and the Mediterranean, as Asia (Cruciani et al., 2007)."
Btw Hunyadi originated the south part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so the spreading of the haplogroup are matching with the location. The Helyon study emphasizes that the Hunyadi DNA has an ancient Carpathian Basin genome, which was presented there a lot of thousand years already.
The study itself explain what does mean the ancient European genetic composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=9678726_gr4.jpg "According to f3-outgroup statistics the Corvinus' genomes have the highest shared drift with Neolithic European samples, Hungarian Neolithic samples Lengyel, Bodrogkeszetúr, Kőrös, ALP appearing in the top list. This clearly shows that the majority genome components of the Corvinus were present in the Carpathian Basin thousands of years ago, which is in agreement with Admixture results"
This is also interesting: https://phylogeographer.com/iron-age-e-y20805-is-a-microcosm-of-the-geographic-distribution-of-e-v13/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/
OrionNimrod (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"Originally I added that genetic content to the article with the Helyon source" Ok, you could've said that from the start. I went ahead and added it with the sfn template.
The "Balkan branch" statement was there before my edit, I chose to keep it as it is still more common in the Balkans (and likely originated there), you can see from the map that it's  widespread but not evenly distributed. You can rephrase that to match "branch that is most frequent in the Balkans", or we could leave it as it is now but add a link to the E-V13 article as that goes into more details on this.
About the ancient European genetic composition, I still think we should keep the admixture results as a note (you know, as "The Corvinus' genome contain the following Admixture component 50% Neolithic Anatolian, 31% Ancient North Eurasian, 8% Iranian Neolithic, 5% Western Hunter gatherer, 3% Early Bronze Age and 2% Han"). Alin2808 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with the sfn template. Corvinus personal DNA is: E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼, E-V13 is just the main branch (which formed 4800? or more years ago), which came from E-M78. The Helyon study says the parent E-M78 formed 13,400 years ago, subgroup dating from about 7000 years ago, were discovered in Avellaner cave, Spain, another E-M78 sample from the Sopot culture was found in Hungary (5000-4800 BCE), and E-V13 is the subgroup of this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/e-m78/.
Unfortunatelly E-V13 article data is really old, the newest source is around or rather before 2010. "According to some authors E-V13 appears" We can see there are many theory.
Also there are more origin theory of E-V13: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/e-v13/about/background
Sorry my mistake, I see those edits came from other users: [10] from IP user: [11]
I have no issue with the admixture components as it is in the study. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼, E-V13 is just the main branch" yes, though I really think we should include a link to the E-V13 article, or at least to E1b1b1a1, because the reader might not know what "E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼" is or what it means. Alin2808 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
All right. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Alin2808, could you tell me why the maternal line is not important? And why do you remove the people of the team? Why do "f3-outgroup statistics" word is more important than the maternal line or the author? Do you think people know what does mean f3? I do not think so. We did not write any method who they determined many other results like how they determined the father-son relations. I organized the info at the same chapters as in the article: introduction + paternal line + maternel line + archeogenomic result and admixtures. Could you tell me where I did not keep the word of the study? I followed exactly. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The team already appears in the cited reference, no need to repeat it in the article. If a different team also does a study, then you can specify. For the rest, it's simply way too much detail for a subsection. Remember, this article is not the genetic study of the Hunyadi genome, it's about the family as a whole. So two paragraphs, one with the results, one with the closest matches is enough.
If you want to add the maternal line, sure, but keep it to one or two simple sentences, and don't go into detail. You can rephrase it as: "The maternal lineage haplogroup of John Corvinus is widespread throughout Eurasia, while Christophorus Corvinus' is most frequent around the Mediterranean. Both maternal lines are consistent with the known origin of their mothers." Alin2808 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
That section is itself the genetic study, I support that you made a separate chapter for that. I see you wanted increase the article with many details, but those details what I added are also important. The maternal line is also same important than the paternal one. If the article is about the Hunyadi family and not the Hunyadi genome, why do you think it is more important than the maternal line to show today individual sample matches from Russia and other countries? Why so important to show "f3-outgroup statistics" or "2%Han"? As you can see I had no problem to add infos what you suggested, but if we started it should be complete. I do not understand that you worry about the too much detalils but presenting methods (f3-outgroup statistics) why you think it is more important than the result itself to say what was their maternal line (T2b)? Why it is a big problem to show a proper introduction, you started to split the text by chapter, as you see I follow it by the genetic study (paternal line + maternel line + archeogenomic result). In Wiki I see many times the name of the author is presented and not only just in the source. Btw my extension was not so long so I do not understand your revert.  OrionNimrod (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"That section is itself the genetic study" - It is, but it's not a separate article. It's a subsection of a section from the article.
"I see you wanted increase the article with many details" - I was fine with only keeping the basic results, but then you added "The closest ancient genetic matches to the paternal E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼ haplogroup of the Hunyadi descendants..." so I continued by adding all the closest matches, not just ancient genetic ones and sample matches in the Carpathian Basin which you added.
"Why so important to show "f3-outgroup statistics"" - Because people reading this won't know what "highest shared drift" means. "or "2%Han"" - excluding the '2% Han' changes the whole result of the study.
"more important than the result itself to say what was their maternal line (T2b)" - Sure you can add it, but as said, try to keep it as simple as you can.
"Btw my extension was not so long" - It was. You expanded the section from two paragraphs to five. Alin2808 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You wanted add more details. This is the result of Hunyadi: E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼ You wanted add the branches, the admixture results. So why it would be problem to show concrete sample matches than showing scientific numbers and %-es.
People who are reading dont know what is "f3-outgroup statistics" "STR" "PCR" "PCR amplification for Y-STRs and Taqman assay for Y-SNPs" " amplifications of aDNA with TaqMan probes" "ABI 7500 Real-time PCR instrument using SDS.1.2.3" "NGS data" etc, so it is useless to name only one method, only expert understand what does it mean.
"try to keep it as simple as you can." I think I did, that is why I think mentioning the method is unnecessary. Sould I add the method how the father-son connection was determined between John and Christopher? I dont think so. But why do method more important than the author itself?
"You expanded the section from two paragraphs to five" by splitting sections as in the sutdy: (introduction + paternal line + maternel line + archeogenomic result) but in the reality this was just some extra sentences.
As you can see I kept your additional contents as I thought we could make it complete. I do not plan more extension above those things.
Itself, in the study we can see the same summarization (introduction + paternal line + maternel line + archeogenomic result): "In the framework of on interdisciplinary research, we have determined the whole genome sequences of Johannes Corvinus and Christophorus Corvinus by next-generation sequencing technology. Both of them carried the Y-chromosome haplogroup is E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c ∼, which is widespread in Eurasia. The father-son relationship was verified using the classical STR method and whole genome data. Christophorus Corvinus belongs to the rare, sporadically occurring T2c1+146 mitochondrial haplogroup, most frequent around the Mediterranean, while his father belongs to the T2b mitochondrial haplogroup, widespread in Eurasia, both are consistent with the known origin of the mothers. Archaeogenomic analysis indicated that the Corvinus had an ancient European genome composition. Based on the reported genetic data, it will be possible to identify all the other Hunyadi family member, whose only known grave site is known, but who are resting assorted with several other skeletons."
OrionNimrod (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"You wanted add more details" - Only wanted the added branches so to explain what "E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c∼" is, that's it and we could've ended at that.
If you still want more than the basic results from this revision, how about this then? - Instead of the "introduction + paternal line + maternel line + archeogenomic result" we keep the introduction, merge the paternal and maternal lines into a paragraph, and keep the results (all results) into another paragraph. So we have three paragraphs. Alin2808 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the average reader who do not understand genetic would be confuse about numbers, so easier to understand split "maternal" and "paternal" result, easier as showing "ABI 7500 Real-time PCR instrument using SDS.1.2.3" or "f3-outgroup statistics" words. Dont forget 2 people were tested, and to identify the remains of Matthias was the main target to make this study.
Anyway as you can see I kept all your edit inside outside this "f3" word. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, fine. Just added some minor edits as well, like removing the piped link and "higher Mediterranean heritage" part as it's already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Alin2808 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, fine! Just note, 2 people means more details. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Alin2808, it is stated in the marked sources by the authors who published the genetic test: " (which peoples can also be traced back to the Carpathian Basin)" [12] OrionNimrod (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, re-added it with proper reference. Alin2808 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree.
E1b1 is a black E-African origin marker, its variants developed further on the SOUTHERN Balkans like the E1b1b1a1b1a. Maybe its African origin contributed/effected the average darker pigmentation of the Balkan origin people (average eye hair skin color) too.--Pharaph (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC). (Democratic Republic of Congo has the highest frequency)
Here is a map for the frequency of E1B Y Haplogroup markers (all subclades all types of E1B1) https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55d49893e4b0caee6f77186f/1635271077336-SL78YMVH2Z2QHDVUS1FD/Current+day+concentrations+of+people+in+haplogroup+E1b1b+E-M215+mutation.png?format=500w  — Preceding
I do not know why it is important, that main haplogroup formed about 40-50,000 years ago: https://www.yfull.com/arch-3.08/tree/E1b1/ Cavemen, dinosaurs? 
According to the contemporary paintings and descriptions, John Hunyadi and King Matthias have blonde hair, so that subhaplogroup mutated a long since 50,000 years. Sample from an elite Hungarian conqueror with the samep haplogroup also had blue eyes and light hair. [13] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Genetically, the conquerors have nothing to do with medieval Hungarian commoners, neither with modern Hungarian population. If you want to search Asiatic/Mongoloid admixtures in Europe, (Autosomal or Y or mt.DNA) the Slavic countries have higher frequency of these. More Eastern Slav means more Asian admixture. Romanians have also have higher frequency of autosomal Asiatic admixtures than than Hungarians, that's why they have more oriental look, often similar to the Cuman Turkic minority in Hungary in the former Kunság (Cumania) reserve area.
Due to the genetics and their foreign language, the conqueror tribesmen of Árpád can not be an etalon/benchmark for Hungarianness, because it is total illogical.
--Pharaph (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
And what is the business with this with the Hunyadi genetic test? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the comparison with Hungarian conquerors is logical, it is what was included in the study, and we present what was presented in the study. And as OrionNimrod said, this is irrelevant to the article. Alin2808 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Árpád's foreign speaking turkic men, - those who most likely did not speak the ancestor of Hungarian languuage - are not good comparison. We are speaking only about backward Y DNA test, and not about trustable modern Autosomal DNA or full genom tests. The conquerors of Árpád were genetically so highly diverse regarding to their Y DNA, that their results can not be taken seriously in a comparison.--Pharaph (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
That genetic study was made by next generation sequence technology made by many academic scholars,  full genome, not only y dna, it seems for the q1 ranked Heliyon scientific journal was ok which supervised and published. Interesting that yourself had no problem with y dna (named "backward by you) when you wrote a very "serious" comparsion with 50,000 years old African y dna (which was not backward when you wrote it) to justify a certain dark skin pigmentation in certain people...OrionNimrod (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Y DNA is backward old technology, like steam powered cars. Y DNA is excellent for modeling migration, but completely unsuitable for determining individual ethnic origin, as it is unable to detect any mixing. Furthermore, Y DNA is unable to determine the kinship of ethnic groups, and even PCA maps cannot be made with them either.
It is no coincidence that the ethnic tests are exclusively autosomal or full genome tests.
There is as much difference in amount of information between Y DNA and autosomal DNA as there is between the capacity of a floppy disk and a blu-ray disk.--Pharaph (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Cool, you could work in a genetic lab. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)