A bit wide of the mark (pun intended ...)
Aircraft designed to do so have their wings and other horizontal airfoils designed to penetrate at the same time
Probably what you are thinking about here is the sweep angles being constrained to be a bit tighter than the (design) mach angle so that the forward surfaces of the aircraft are contained within the the bow wave oblique shocks. Otherwise, drag and handling problems would become a worry.
commercial airliners have to my knowledge fallen victim to the "Mach Tuck"
Applies to all the higher performance jet transports. This is one of the reasons for speed limits as too significant an excursion will put the aircraft in this region. Generally not a big deal - you just slow down a bit. However, some of the early jet upsets saw aircraft getting into a situation where stab jacks stalled and the aircraft were lost. Most aircraft with a problem will have some sort of auto trim function to act against the early stages of Mach tuck.
where their center of lift transverses aft of the wing (loosing all lift) while the stab maintains sub mach speeds (lift) creating what had been percieved by early aviators as a stall.
Not too sure where this one came from. For subsonic flow, the CP lives somewhere near the quarter chord position. For supersonic flow, the CP changes address and moves to around the half chord position. Much of the problem with the transonic region is associated with this transition of CP position. Many problems can arise if the wing profile is not designed for supersonic flow due to shock induced flow separation. The stab, like the wing, gets involved with the same sort of flow problems if it's not suitably designed.
the leading edge of the airfoils maintain a constant pressure after the transition to mach speed is achived. "the snail crept along the razor"....
Got me foxed here. The wing leading edge will be constrained to lie within the Mach cone so the flow should be similar along its length.
Regarding the Wiki link, which I have now had a chance to scan .. I wouldn't waste your time with it. Mostly a montage of gobbledegook, misunderstood airflow principles, and general nonsense. Any of the standard aero engineering texts would be a better source of description. Actually, I found it interesting to read .. this is the first Wiki reference I have followed (not many in total) which has been basically nonsense.