It's true for anything with an obsessive self-declared owner on a subject. Political articles attract those like flies, but you'd be surprised at all the other places they nest.
I see that the bird lovers have finally conquered the Feral_cat page on wikipedia. That took some doing. The obsessed cat crazies used to really guard that page.
A decade or two ago, wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had to step in to handle pedophilia-related pages that were being guarded by sympathetic editors.
Most companies will guard pages related to them. Whole countries will even do this.
Not just controversial or political. I've added edits with valid sources to non-political and non-controversial pages only to have them immediately reverted by a zealous editor who looks things just as they are.
I had edits with valid sources be reverted and then added by the "owner" of the page. Wikipedia honestly is a mess in my opinion for contribution. I'd prefer if edits could be voted upon by the community to be approved or not instead of someone being able to straight up edit it and straight up revert edits.
This is my experience. I fix an error on a page (and not a controversial page, and just fixing an error in some math) and it is immediately reverted by someone's bot. A few hours later the moderator puts the edit back in. Probably pretty difficult for someone to break into the "star wiki editors" list these days.
