Dear Wikipedia editorial community,
My name is WSC00, I work for Chris Hohn’s personal office, and I have established this account to help improve his article in line with Wikipedia’s standards and guidelines. Please could I request the following amendments to the third paragraph of Chris Hohn’s article concerning his donations to Extinction Rebellion.
I propose that the current wording presents the following issues in relation to Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality standards:
1. Unsupported “largest donor” phrasing
The statement that Sir Chris is “one of the largest funders” of Extinction Rebellion does not appear to be supported by independent secondary sources. While reporting confirms that he has donated to the organisation, no reliable outlet independently ranks him among its “largest” funders, nor is it been disclosed by Extinction Rebellion. Under WP:BLP and WP:RS, such claims should not be included without clear verification.
2. Advocacy derived wording about Extinction Rebellion’s U.S. affiliate
The current phrasing referencing a call for “rebellion against the U.S. government” appears to originate from a political advocacy report rather than neutral, independent reporting. Such material does not meet WP:RS, gives undue weight to a partisan framing (WP:UNDUE), and is inappropriate for use in a biography of a living person (WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES).
3. Neutrality and accuracy regarding Extinction Rebellion’s ethos
Extinction Rebellion’s ethos is consistently described by reliable outlets as advocating non-violent civil disobedience or non-violent rebellion in response to government inaction on climate change. By way of example, this neutral, independent description is preferable to material sourced from partisan reports:
- BBC News: XR describes itself as an “international non-violent civil disobedience movement” and “wants governments to declare a "climate and ecological emergency" and take immediate action”. (BBC News, ‘What is Extinction Rebellion?’, 23 August 2021) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48607989
I would therefore request the following edit to the third paragraph:
“According to independent reporting, he has personally donated £50,000 to the UK environmental movement Extinction Rebellion [1] which advocates non-violent civil disobedience and non-violent rebellion to urge governments to take stronger action on the ecological and climate crisis.[2]”
In summary, this version:
- reports his donations as confirmed by a reliable, independent source;
- removes the unsupported donor ranking claim;
- removes the advocacy based political framing about XR’s U.S. affiliate;
- replaces it with XR’s accurately cited, neutrally reported ethos from mainstream outlets; and
- complies with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP.
I respectfully request that the article be updated to remove the unsupported donor ranking statement and the advocacy derived language about XR’s U.S. affiliate, and to adopt the neutral, independently sourced replacement text above.
Thank you for your consideration, and I am happy to provide sources or further clarification if helpful.
- I'll look more into these requests, but right off the bat, The Guardian says "Hohn is the single biggest individual donor to Extinction Rebellion." Marquardtika (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Marquardtika: Thank you for your response. I will be taking over the conversation on edits to paragraph 3, to avoid confusion of multiple conversations, as they refer primarily to Chris Hohn’s charitable activity through CIFF.
-
- On your specific point, re: the guardian source, I am happy to come back to you with additional sources. What do you think of moving the paragraph to the Donations section per my comment below about WP:LEAD?
-
- Very happy to continue working with you on the content questions after that, to help ensure the page is as accurate and neutral as possible. 2012duke21 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- By "taking over the conversation" do you mean from WSC00 (talk · contribs), another disclosed COI editor here? Marquardtika (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Marquardtika: Yes, we're learning the processes here and decided it would be better to only have one COI editor making suggestions. 2012duke21 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Proposed content changes (COI disclosed)
Hello Wikipedia! I'm an employee of CIFF. I understand that as I have a financial conflict of interest I should not edit this article directly. Instead, I will start discussions and propose changes here on the Talk page for volunteer editors to respond to.
- Requested change: Move the paragraph in the box below from the lead to either the “Donations” or “Activities” section.
After a 2025 watchdog report indicated that between 2014 and 2023, Hohn had sent $553 million to U.S. political and environmental advocacy organizations, Hohn's foundation announced that it would stop giving money to U.S.-based groups, citing uncertainty about the U.S. policy environment governing foreign funding.
[3][4] Hohn is the single largest individual funder of
Extinction Rebellion, a group that orchestrates high-profile climate protests around the world,
[5] and whose U.S. affiliate has called for "rebellion against the U.S. government for its criminal inaction on the ecological crisis." Hohn has also been a major donor to the
Arabella Advisors network via the
New Venture Fund and
Windward Fund.
[6][7]
References
Dixon, Hayley (10 October 2019). "Extinction Rebellion funded by charity set up by one of Britain's richest men". The Daily Telegraph.
- Reason: Per WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It seems the paragraph is misplaced, since it contains details that are not included elsewhere in the article and goes beyond basic facts.
@Marquardtika: I've updated this request to focus on just one aspect of my initial request. Based on your earlier comments about sourcing, I thought I'd also share this article from The Times. It includes specific donation figures, and in context I think demonstrates that compared to overall donations, this is not a major contribution: "Hohn is also the biggest single donor to climate crisis group Extinction Rebellion, saying in 2019: 'I recently gave them £50,000 because humanity is aggressively destroying the world with climate change and there is an urgent need for us all to wake up to this fact.' His charity is thought to have pledged a further £150,000."
If you agree, I can propose some replacement text to add perspective.
Cheers, 2012duke21 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
2nd request: changes to paragraph on Extinction Rebellion and support for US-based NGOs
Hello, I work at CIFF. Since the previous change I suggested was implemented, I'd like to propose some changes to the paragraph about Chris Hohn's contributions to US-based NGOs and Extinction Rebellion.
Replace
After a 2025 watchdog report indicated that between 2014 and 2023, Hohn had sent $553 million to U.S. political and environmental advocacy organizations, Hohn's foundation announced that it would stop giving money to U.S.-based groups, citing uncertainty about the U.S. policy environment governing foreign funding.
[1][2] Hohn is the single largest individual funder of
Extinction Rebellion, a group that orchestrates high-profile climate protests around the world,
[3] and whose U.S. affiliate has called for "rebellion against the U.S. government for its criminal inaction on the ecological crisis." Hohn has also been a major donor to the
Arabella Advisors network via the
New Venture Fund and
Windward Fund.
[4][5]With
Between 2014 and 2023, Hohn donated approxiamtely $500 million to US-based NGOs working internationally. In 2025, Hohn's foundation announced that it would stop giving money to US-based groups, citing uncertainty about the US policy environment governing foreign funding.
[1] In 2019, Hohn donated £50,000 to
Extinction Rebellion, a group that organizes climate protests around the world. CIFF reportedly donated an additional £150,000 to the group.
[2][3]- Reason: The current paragraph relies on sources that are not considered reliable, or do not provide context. A Fox News article is used to verify information on a political topic, National Review is marked as unreliable and RealClearPolitics is marked as questionable and its use "as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided."
To verify content about the change to funding US-based NGOs, I kept Financial Times as a more balanced source. I did not mention the APT report, since it is not an independently notable organization and comprises publicly available information. I added a citation from The Times that verifies the specific amount Chris Hohn and CIFF donated to Extinction Rebellion to provide context, and replaced the statement about being the largest donor with the specific figures, since that information is evergreen and shows the amount compared to other donations.
I have a financial conflict of interest, so I am asking editors to review these changes and implement them on my behalf if they are appropriate. Cheers 2012duke21 (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
