If wikipedia says something is controversial, then that something is controversial if for no other reason than because there is controversy on wikipedia about it.
This is different than claiming "wikipedia says it's [right/wrong], so it must be [right/wrong]" Demonstrating that an idea is controversial is much easier than proving that idea right or wrong.
Certain individuals are very diligent at scrubbing out whatever they disagree with. The YDIH page is "curated" by a retired professor who insists it lead with a 19th-century speculation, and no doubt will be for a few years more.
Wikipedia "controversies" often carry on for many years after the pros have settled down, until retirees with an axe to grind move on.
Your threshold for "controversy" is way below anybody else's.
Is it controversial whether the Earth is flat? Whether people walked on the moon? Whether they found alien spacecraft there? Whether viruses are involved in AIDS and cancers?
This trivializes the meaning of "controversial" in the context of science, at least, and at the same time places Wikipedia on a level of authority I'm unconvinced is justified. I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles suggesting that climate change is "controversial", too: that doesn't mean it is.
There isn't any scientific controversy about climate change. There is made-up politically motivated obfuscation in service of certain industries, which is controversial.
This is different than claiming "wikipedia says it's [right/wrong], so it must be [right/wrong]" Demonstrating that an idea is controversial is much easier than proving that idea right or wrong.