Wikipedia's "Debunking" of the Moon Hoax Theories

Wikipedia does a good try at debunking them - but not good enough.
It is very resistant to change, as if there are people hired to reject anything contrary to the official story.

On the Surveyor 3 material supposedly brought back to Earth, "all participating investigators concluded that no material or surface features were found that definitely could be stated to be meteoritic in origin

For example, there is no mention of the video proving Astronauts faked being far from Earth.
Wikipedia simply says that Bart Sibrel's finding of the video of the Apollo 11 astronauts deliberately faking photo of Earth was "debunked".
They provide a link to the mean of the word, but no evidence.  The footnote link provided goes to a 3 part video, neither of which explain why the astronauts would be doing that, if they were really 1/2 way to the Moon.

Chang'e allegedly finds "traces" but no source details are provided

Regarding the text:

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010, can photograph the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 1.3 meters (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.[178]

Lina, Yang, ed. (February 6, 2012). "China publishes high-resolution full moon map". (Beijing:Xinhua News Agency). Retrieved April 20, 2013.

When we look at the source article we find just one single sentence, with no details, much less photos: "The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project"

If this is to be considered third party verification of such a significant sighting, we need more details. The Chinese might just be playing along, to not awaken the sleeping American giant, while they continue working to land the first man on the Moon. Wikipedia should not state that " It spotted traces of the Apollo landings". It is more accurate to write "A Chinese official reported spotting traces of the Apollo landings."

Dr. James Van Allen discovered the bands of radiation and published his findings in Scientific American. His findings were repeated by other scientists. Wikipedia falsely reports that James rescinded his findings in an email. He would have written another scholarly article, which is how scientists publish their findings. Emails have no signature, and can be easily faked. The Van Allen Belts are established text book science. The radiation levels are crippling at least, or deadly, depending on the time spent in the belts. The new Orion capsule has thick, radiation resistant walls. Why not simply re-use the Apollo capsule if it was safe?