Burden of proof. It's not on me to disprove Wikipedia's explanation. It's on Wikipedia to prove it. I can see why you're a Heliocentrist if you always put the Burden of proof on the one questioning the claim. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one disputing it.
For example - what evidence of refraction has Wikipedida collected at every selenelion, and at different locations? Refraction is very strange if it works from all locations and directions at every selenelion, yet it must, if Wikipedia's claim is correct. How many degrees does the measured refraction account for, and why - if the light is refracted so much (it won't be) - is the moon still dark, given that the refraction would cause the light from the sun to now reach the moon, refuting Heliocentrisms very explanation of the eclipse in the first place?