text:
Edwin Brienen

Edwin Brienen (born June 15, 1971 in Alkmaar, Netherlands) is a Dutch film director, actor, producer, journalist and radio moderator. In German press he's often called 'the Dutch Fassbinder' because of the high production-level and style of his films. He lives in Berlin, Germany.

Biography
After studying philosophy and psychology, Edwin Brienen embarked on a career as a radio host at the age of 22. His programs for Dutch broadcasting association VPRO attracted a nationwide following. On television he starred in the underground series Ultra Vista!. For television he directed the shows Buch, Burgers & Buitenlui and Hoe Hoort het Eigenlijk? with Theo van Gogh. In 2001, he wrote, directed, and edited his debut feature film Terrorama!, a dark story about a group of dispirited people who seek out 'psychological freedom' by committing an act of terror. A year later, Brienen returned to VPRO and, in September 2001, he created a series about the New York underground scene.

Brienen's fourth feature, Both Ends Burning, premiered during the Brienen Festival in 14 Dutch theaters in January 2005. The film probes the underbelly of relationships and is suffused with an atmosphere reminiscent of French cinema of the '70s but also contains bone-chilling moments that recall Carrie and Repulsion. In 2005, Arte TV broadcast a documentary about Brienen in which they compared his work and intensity with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.

Last Performance (2006) and Revision – Apocalypse II (2009) both premiere at the Netherlands Film Festival in Utrecht. In 2008, Brienen works together with Austrian actor Erwin Leder known from the 1981 classic Das Boot as directed by Wolfgang Petersen. The result is called L'amour toujours and Leder plays an obsessed director that resembles Brienen. Two German spoken films are released in 2009 and 2011: Viva Europa! about the revolutions of 1989 and Lena Wants to Know Once and For All, a melancholic comedy about the search for love.

In October 2012, the Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival in Switzerland honoured Brienen by presenting a retrospective of his films, including the world premiere of Exploitation.

December 2016 saw the premiere of Brienen’s 15th feature film, God. It’s a story about striptease dancer Alice, whose boyfriend is hunted by a corrupt political regime after leaking secret government documents. Stuck in a web of intrigue and violent threats, a nun confronts Alice with her stubborn dogmatism. The film got nominated for “best narrative feature” at the Great Lakes Film Festival in 2017. That same year, the prestigious Centrum Filmowe Kraków presented an Edwin Brienen film retrospective. Thereafter, Brienen took two years off to write on his debut novel. In 2020 he returned with a short film, Accidents Never Happen in a Perfect World, shot during the pandemic lockdown.

Filmography

 * 2020 Accidents Never Happen in a Perfect World (short)
 * 2016 God
 * 2012 Exploitation
 * 2011 Lena Wants to Know Once and For All
 * 2010 Revision - Apocalypse II
 * 2009 Viva Europa!
 * 2009 Phantom Party
 * 2008 L'amour toujours
 * 2007 I'd Like to Die a Thousand Times
 * 2006 Last Performance
 * 2006 Hysteria
 * 2005 Why Ulli Wanted to Kill Himself on Christmas Eve
 * 2004 Both Ends Burning
 * 2003 Berlin Nights Grand Delusions
 * 2002 Antifilm
 * 2001 Terrorama

title: Edwin Brienen


text:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid

This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable. A self-reference in an article usually mentions Wikipedia directly or tells readers to take an action on Wikipedia, such as editing the article.

Although self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should usually be avoided, there are exceptions. Some examples of acceptable self-references are articles about Wikipedia, categories, and maintenance templates.

This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ...
Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policies or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided in the article namespace where it is unnecessary. If mentioning a policy is necessary to disambiguate article titles or subtopics, hatnotes can serve that purpose.

These types of self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as a free content encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our licenses. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful, even outside the context of the project used to create them. This means that while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website"). And our readers already know this is an encyclopedia; it is not useful to insert content disclaimers, e.g., "While Wikipedia is not a dictionary ..." to an article on a jargon term.

Mentioning the Wikipedia community, or website features, can confuse readers of derived works. Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, nor mention any Wikipedia project page or process, specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. "PoV" in place of "biased"), or any MediaWiki interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen.

References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable. For instance, in the article on the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, before the alleged victim's identification, it said that "Due to concerns over privacy, the name of the alleged victim is not being included in this article." That is a reference that makes sense on mirrors and forks and in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia that contains only the article space. Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section. The template can be used to mark such passages as intentional self-references that are generally printworthy and mirror-worthy, but which some reusers may wish to suppress. Other examples of permissible self-references of this sort include disambiguation links (the templates for which suppress their appearance in printed copies), and "See ..." cross-references (which may or may not be printworthy, depending upon whether they are inter-article;.

The templates that render self-referencing messages for the maintenance needs of developing articles, such as, , and , are unavoidable (and may permissibly include things like "Edit this page ..."), but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as and the others.

Note that ..., It is important to ..., What is ...?, Surprisingly ..., Of course ...
Avoid "breaking the fourth wall" to address readers directly in an unencyclopedic tone, either instructional or opinionated. This includes the pedagogical style of posing rhetorical questions to the reader (worst of all in headings). Neutral cross-references, e.g., are permissible (and best done with the template), but are often best reworded (The Cymric cat is a recent breed developed from the Manx.).

Click here to see more (think about print)
Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles should be written in a manner that facilitates transmission in other forms such as print, spoken word, and via a screen reader. So terms such as "this article" are preferable to "this webpage", and phrases like "click here" should be avoided. In determining what language is most suitable, it may be helpful to imagine writing the article for a print encyclopedia.

Free content projects, such as this website ... (writing about Wikipedia itself)
Articles about online communities may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on—or is a part of—Wikipedia. In this framework, if you link from an article to a specific Wikipedia page, use external link style, so the link will make sense in any context. The template will do this for you.

Such pages may include:
 * Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: Uncyclopedia
 * Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia, for example: Jimmy Wales
 * Articles about Wikipedia
 * Articles where Wikipedia, or an individual incident related to it, is illustrative of the subject, such as virtual community, encyclopedia and Streisand effect

This article was criticized by ... (articles are about their subjects, not this website)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves. This means that even if an article itself becomes famous, that article should not report this about itself.

For example, a discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriately mentioned in the article on The Colbert Report, but not in the article on elephants, because elephants have nothing to do with Stephen Colbert. Protests regarding depictions of Muhammad in Wikipedia's Muhammad article are not addressed in that article (which is about the prophet Muhammad), but rather in the article Depictions of Muhammad.

A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article; such a mention would have to reflect its importance in the person's overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning that he read his Wikipedia biography is not normally an important event in his overall career. On the other hand, the media attention surrounding John Seigenthaler's Wikipedia entry became significant in his public life.

In templates and categories
Self-references are sometimes found in the templates and the categories. Some of these are necessary or intrinsic to the purpose of the page, as with disambiguation information at the top of category pages and in stub templates, which encourage readers to edit the page. Unnecessary self-references are not encouraged in templates or categories, due to the need of third-party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references. For example, all navbox templates should provide a list of related articles, but none of them should label these pages as "Wikipedia articles" or as "Related articles on this website".

When forced to use templates like this, you should use them in a way such that the article still makes sense when the template is removed, in order to facilitate automated removal.

Wikipedia project coordination pages should be under Category:Wikipedia administration, not in categories that contain main-namespace articles by topic. (A small number of articles about Wikipedia are in the mainstream categories and this is OK.) User pages may be categorized under Category:Wikipedians, but not in any of the subcategories under Category:People.

Self-reference tools
The self-reference template,, is used to mark pieces of text and links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. This gives the ability to programmatically remove all such references or transform them into external links. Thus, the end product can have all of its self-references removed automatically for users, such as forks and mirrors. This template is most often used as a hatnote template to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page in the Wikipedia project namespace.

Many hatnote templates that do contain helpful preset text and linking, such as for and about, support a selfref parameter that gives them the same functionality as, making them better options in most circumstances.

In cases where a Wikipedia page should link to Wikipedia itself (for instance, at Wikipedia) and this link should be kept on mirrors, the format can be used to write the link as external, rather than internal when outside of Wikipedia, to prevent it breaking in mirrors. For instance: (made by  ) as opposed to Wikipedia's Main Page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Terrorama

Terrorama! (2001) is the first feature film of Dutch director Edwin Brienen. In 2002 Terrorama! won the award for Best film at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival and best leading actress at the Toronto Independent Film Festival (Esther Eva Verkaaik).

Plot
The film tells the story of six mental cases, trying to get rid of society's norms and values by kidnapping Gerard van Dongen, a well-known TV host. During an improvised TV show, the terrorists confront this Van Dongen with their darkest thoughts and emotions, resulting in violent excesses and extreme sexual behaviour.

UK release
Salvation Group bought the UK rights for the film in 2003. A DVD was scheduled for release on August 4, 2003, however was pulled back because of BBFC restrictions. After the killing of Theo van Gogh, Salvation decided to cut the controversial scene with Van Gogh reading from the Koran. The censored version of the film was set to release on June 11, 2007, but was pulled back again for reasons unknown.

title: Terrorama


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid/Archive 1

What is meant by "self-reference"?
So, by self-reference, you mean the word "Wikipedia"? That does seem like a good policy. What about links to Wikipedia subjects? Seems like those would break under forking, too.

Otherwise, this is just commonsense that nobody ever thought of. B-)

-- ESP 05:55 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * What kind of links do you mean? Links into the Wikipedia namespace? Yes, many of our policies are "common sense", but you wouldn't believe how useful it can be to point to common sense rule X and say "Look, this is one of our policies/guidelines. Please don't do that." --Eloquence 05:58 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I mean links into the Wikipedia namespace. This is what I mean.

 * As for the common sense point: I was just being jokey. The idea is so good, it seems like common sense after it was proposed. But before you proposed it, I never would have thought of it. That's the best kind of idea -- original, but seems right on first reading. Kudos! -- ESP 06:08 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So I assume this policy does not apply to disambiguation and the disambiguation pages boilerplate text?

Also how does it apply to stub boilerplate text? Are they still allowed because eventually the reference to Wikipedia will be removed? -- Popsracer 05:59 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * These kind of boilerplate texts will hopefully be transcluded dynamically when an article is assigned to one of the relevant categories. A category system is already in the works, where you will be able to say in an article, and it would only be natural to insert the respective notice when certain categories are selected. That would also make it much easier to update the texts.

 * In the meantime, we should change the existing boilerplate text to avoid at least using the Wikipedia name, although links into the Wikipedia: namespace should be OK. --Eloquence 06:02 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree, but User:Anthony DiPierro seems to object to links into the Wikipedia namespace, he often deletes these. Has there been a discussion elsewhere on this? --Patrick 01:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Boilerplate text is fine. Just keep it in the mediawiki: namespace and use msg:. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought that msg was for texts that are used more often. Is it also used for single occasions? If so, please do not delete links, but replace them. If not, please leave the links as they are. --Patrick 02:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * msg: is for texts used more often. That's what boilerplate text means. Anthony DiPierro 13:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, just because I'm a big booster, I want to give a devil's advocate question. To wit: the stated reason for avoiding self-references is to make it easier to fork Wikipedia. I ask: how important is it to make it _easy_ to fork Wikipedia? The Wikipedia namespace links, standard boilerplate, etc., makes our work on the project easier. How much pain do we have to go to to make downstream modifiers' lives easier? -- ESP 06:11 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * While it is true that forks are not always desirable, these kind of self-references are problematic for all types of redistribution. Say you print out an article about Apocalypse Now for your school class -- now what exactly are your students supposed to do with a notice like "Wikipedia contains spoilers"? Of course we like to stick our name onto our work, but requiring credit, linking to the FDL etc. should be enough to accomplish this.

 * I do agree that we should not make our work more difficult, though. That's why I think links into the Wikipedia namespace in boilerplace text are OK. --Eloquence 06:14 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Fair enough! -- ESP 06:22 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Another question: what about the legal disclaimers, like not giving medical advice or legal advice? Do those fall under the boilerplate extension? Lastly, is there a technical solution for marking up "meta" information? For example, editorial comments, disclaimers, stub notices? -- ESP 06:22 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, it is debatable whether we should have such disclaimers (some users have strong aversions to them), but if we do want them, they are certainly similar in type to spoiler warnings etc., so linking to a page in the Wikipedia namespace that describes our position should be OK. No, there is no solution to markup such information, and what we really want is transclusion -- retrieve the text from another page, so that only a single page has to be updated. If we had this, we could even have self-references in these notices, as others could change them easily. --Eloquence 06:32 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And another other question: what about references to the Talk: and User: namespaces? -- ESP 06:22 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Avoid if possible. Redirects to the user namespace are generally considered OK, but linking to the talk page should usually not be done -- that's what "Discuss this page" is for. --Eloquence 06:32 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Links to "Talk" and "User" namespaces from the article namespace are almost always inappropriate. --Robert Merkel 11:44 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

This is a very misconceived rule IMO. It encourages the duplication of content in multiple articles, when a self-reference would refer people to the appropriate place. In practice, at worst this may mean that for some articles that forkers would have to edit them slightly to make them suitable as standalone pieces. Our first priority should be to build the best encyclopedia we can, and compromising that to make it marginally easier to fork seems a bad tradeoff. --Robert Merkel 11:39 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I should however add that it is not all that common for self-references to be the best way to handle things and that other methods of providing links to other articles are often a better idea. I just don't want to remove them from the quiver for the times when they are necessary. --Robert Merkel 11:43 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Um, are we talking about the same kind of "self-references"? I fail to see how avoiding unnecessary references to the Wikipedia project within articles encourages "duplication of content". --Eloquence 11:46 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, misread the proposed guideline. --Robert Merkel 15:34 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Now that I have a clue what I'm talking about (I hope)...Purely from a stylistic point of view, I think continually talking about yourself (on in this case your project) is offputting, so in practice I guess this rule makes sense.

Personally, I prefer it shows were the links lead and identify meta information. Even printed, it's probably understandable.-- User:Docu
 * contains spoilers to Warning: Spoilers follow
 * This is a disambiguation page to This is a disambiguation page

Redirects from article namespace
Another question is, if we should remove redirects from the article namespace to the Wikipedia/User/talk namespaces or not. Often, they were created when moving articles there. -- User:Docu

 * BTW: User:Tim Starling created a list of references from the article namespace to user User:Tim Starling/Redirects from : to User: -- User:Docu

Are there exceptions to the rule of "avoid self-references" ? Is the mention of "wikipedia talk" on the VFD disambig page flouting policy ? Jay 18:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I suppose, but fixing disambiguation pages is probably even a lower priority than many others.
 * You might be interested in Talk:vfd
 * BTW we fixed most of the stub boilerplate texts. -- User:Docu

 * Yes, I fixed it. anthony (see warning) 22:45, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think the VfD page is a good example were the self reference should stay. It is an important term here that needs explanation. Wikipedia would not be any harder to duplicate, if vfd explained that there is a certain on-line encyclopedia were these letters have a special meaning.

In the page Talk:VFD I have written more fully why this one should stay.Sander123 11:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

As long as the link is an external link, rather than a link to another namespace, it doesn't violate this policy. If you use a direct link there is a problem with duplication, because many duplicates exclude the Wikipedia namespace. anthony (see warning)

Name Wikipedia in template name
We could also avoid a template name like "In Wikipedia" and call it "In this project"; this is not needed for an uneditable copy (because not visible), but it might be better for a fork.--Patrick 14:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure this would help anything, as a separate project would most likely have a completely different set of pages in its project namespace, so it would have to edit this manually anyway. Something like Template:Stub, on the other hand, would be a more useful template to edit rather than remove. anthony (see warning)

 * I suppose I didn't think it all the way through when creating Template:In Wikipedia. As it is something someone would have to take out manually, it may or may not be worth fixing.
 * As it's probably better to avoid the word "Wikipedia" in article namespace, except for articles like "Wikipedia", we might change Template:In Wikipedia as well. -- User:Docu

Redirects from article namespace again
Should redirects from the article namespace be allowed to the Wikipedia/User namespaces? Same question was asked above without any response. Page in question is Wiki Canonization which redirects to Canonicalization. Jay 21:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Redirects from article namespace to other namespaces should really be avoided and no new ones created. If a page has just been created in the wrong namespace, e.g. User talk Docu/Archive (instead of User talk:Docu/Archive), the redirect created through a move is usually deleted after a short time.

 * There is still a large number of redirects from article namespace to, e.g., user namespace ( User:Tim Starling/Redirects from : to User: from the time before namespaces were added. Some of the redirect to User: have already been deleted.

 * Wiki Canonization seems to date from that time as well. The page seems to have been copy-and-pasted to Canonicalization rather than moved. The beginning of the pages history (until 17:25, 2002 May 21) is now at Wiki Canonization and the rest Canonicalization . So even if we decide to delete the redirect, we want to move the page history into Wikipedia namespace first. --User:Docu

Self-referencing external links
I noticed that some new users make the mistake of using external links instead of wikilinks (like This instead of This). I made a list of possible such articles at User:Wmahan/Articles with self-references. Some of these might actually be valid external links (e.g. VFD), but any comments or help correcting them would be appreciated. Wmahan. 00:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

 * I'd keep the ones on Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, etc. and remove the others (convert or move to talk (e.g. Warsaw (disambiguation)). -- User:Docu

Wikicode self-reference
I'm one of the designers of Wikicode, a proposed pseudocode standard for Wikipedia. One of the requirements I came up with was for the first prominent pseudocode sample in each article to include a link to Wikicode, which describes some details of the pseudocode, for reference purposes, using the  template. However, currently this template (Template: wikicode) contains text referring to Wikipedia. How should this be fixed? Derrick Coetzee 19:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks like someone simply dropped the word Wikipedia... this kinda works but has an odd sound to it ("for articles"... what articles?) I'd appreciate any other suggestions. Derrick Coetzee 03:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation, copyright, and citation
Moved from Village pump (policy)

When I translate an article from a foreign-language Wikipedia (which I do a lot of) I routinely add a note in the references section such as, in the case of Colonel-General "This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the German-language Wikipedia." In that particular case, the person who originally requested the translation on Translation into English proceeded to comment out this acknowledgment describing it as "self-reference". I do not think it is self-reference in any disparaging sense, and I suspect it is necessary in order to properly comply with GFDL (and certainly with reasonable scholarly standards of acknowledgement) but perhaps I have misunderstood, so I am bringing the question here. As I see it:

 * 1) The different-language Wikipedias do not constitute a single work. Therefore, my English-language article is a derivative work of the German-language article. I believe this is precisely the acknowledgment of authorship required under GFDL.
 * 2) Separate from a legal matter, from a scholarly point of view these are two distinct works. I haven't bothered with strict formal citation of a particular version of the German-language article (perhaps I should) and I suppose that it is a little strange that as the two works evolve over time they could have acknowledgments to each other (not unknown in the academic world, either, but relatively unusual).

Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear from others on this: on the legal matter, I'd like in particular to hear from someone who better understands the legalities of complying with GFDL, not just someone with an opinion about how they'd like things to be. I'd also like to an explanation of how, if at all, this violates our rules on self-reference. I think it would be absurd if everyone in the world can cite the German-language Wikipedia... except other Wikipedias. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is a self-reference because you refer to "the corresponding article" on the German Wikipedia, implying that this article is on the English Wikipedia, which in redistributions may not be the case. Also consider article evolution over time. A better message would be to simply say "A previous version of this article was based on the German Wikipedia article whatever." Possibly, even include a full-URL link in your references section, so that redistributions that discard interlanguage links retain a link. Neither of these is self-reference, because you are citing Wikipedia in precisely the same manner as any other source. Derrick Coetzee 03:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see how "corresponding article" (with a link) is self-reference, I've seen the same phrase used in referring to the "corresponding article" in the 1911 Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia. In any case, is this policy? Is it written down somewhere? or is it just your personal opinion on what would be right to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, this is just my opinion. I didn't think of that — maybe there is no reason not to say it exactly as you did and the other editor was overzealous. Consider visiting Wikipedia talk: Avoid self-references. Derrick Coetzee 06:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End moved text

So, here I am. Is there already a standard on this of which I am unaware? If not, would someone like to propose one? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like Dcoetzee's suggestion above. However, see below for a challange to the whole point of "Avoid self-reference." JesseW 02:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the way Jmabel put it originally.  +sj +  21:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong reason?
IMO the following argument is not convincing.

 * The main reason is that they complicate forking and the use of Wikipedia articles by others

I say they complicate the unattributed use. What's wrong in people knowing that this is Wikipedia's article, not of a random web-snatcher? Mikkalai 23:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anyone want to defend this reason? JesseW 02:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's article. It's my article (or whoever wrote it) which is being published by Wikipedia, as permitted under the terms of the GFDL. Wikipedia is no different from any "mirror" in this respect, except that Wikipedia is in many cases the initial publisher. — Kate Turner | Talk 02:26, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Once published in wikipedia, it is no longer yours, since I've already replaced half of your contribution tomorrow. "Yours" is only in "history", and I doubt that it is mirrored. Mikkalai 02:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To say it's "Wikipedia's" is misleading. Neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation owns any copyright on the work.  It is not "Wikipedia's" in any sense other than Wikipedia hosts it (which doesn't grant any ownership: 'mirrors' host articles, too).  All content I write is still mine.  If you edit my content, you add your content (not Wikipedia's content) to mine.  It's still yours and mine, not Wikipedia's.    — Kate Turner | Talk 03:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Additionally, whether or not it's "Wikipedia's," a link to a page like User:Jimbo Wales or Stub doesn't make much sense in a mirror — either because they won't mirror those pages, or their project namespace isn't called "Wikipedia," or the information is related to editing which doesn't apply, and so on. When these links are either put into templates, or changed into external links (for example, the user page link on Jimmy Wales) it's much easier to remove irrelevant and misleading content.   — Kate Turner | Talk 02:30, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Your examples are cases of references to technical pages. Their usage is from the same basket as "hardcoded" links  of beginner self-webmasters. Mikkalai 02:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much difference. "This Wikipedia article is a stub" and "This article is a stub " aren't very much different - both complicate forking and both are self-references. (However, the  message is in a template which can be removed easily, so that particular example isn't a problem).   — Kate Turner | Talk 03:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

So, again: I don't believe that main reason of using the "This Wikipedia article..." phrase is problems of use by others. I say, if these "others" disagree that it is a wikipedia article, then let them sweat a bit. Mikkalai 02:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This policy is misconceived
"Forking," given above as the basic justification for the ban on self-reference, is a term taken from the computer field. Normally, it refers to reuse of software code. In open-source software, self-reference (for example, to details of particular machines or installations) is a hindrance to legitimate reuse.

Scholarly content differs from software because its value consists of accuracy, not functionality. To help establish accuracy, scholars cite their sources. Any Web site that uses Wikipedia material without saying where it is from (and this practice is pervasive) is engaged in rotten scholarship--in fact, in plagiarism.

It follows that any passage in a Wikipedia article that says it is a Wikipedia article can only be to the good, since it helps reveal bad scholarship on the part of others. If others won't cite the Wikipedia as source, let us in effect do it for them.

In conclusion: the software analogy is a false analogy. Software can be anonymously reused because it is self-verifying--you just check if the program works. Scholarship cannot be anonymously reused, because that breaks the chain of citation on which its quality depends.

Thanks for listening, Opus33 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Opus, leaving context-sensitive self-references in articles does little to help others properly cite their sources. When a lawyer uses a segment from a Wikipedia article in a court case, or a company uses a few pages of a wikipedia seires in a business plan, or a travel guide uses a few passages from a Wikibook to illustrate a specialized point, they should be able to do so without worrying about subtle notes which will make no sense to someone who is not browsing the WP website.   +sj +  21:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There are hosts of other "subtle notes" that lose their sense when taken out of context. Brainless reuse should be punished as well. Mikkalai 22:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikicode
This was removed as a self-reference without explanation. Looking at what links here, there are a number of links from the article space to this Wikipedia space page. anthony 警告 21:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It contains one link into the Wikipedia namespace, but it is very important and has been explained at Wikicode and  Wikicode/Specification. Basically, the point is to have a link to a project page where people can read about the syntax and semantics of the pseudocode, in case there's anything they don't understand. I removed the explicit reference in the text to Wikipedia; I thought this was the cause for concern. Derrick Coetzee 20:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added it to the list with all the others.  This is ok, right?  anthony 警告 21:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for the confusion. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 21:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Community and website feature references
I added the section "Community and website feature references" to try to explain some of the finer points that people seem to be missing. I hope it is in keeping with the spirit of the policy. Many people think "avoid self-reference" merely means "don't say Wikipedia", which is obviously an oversimplification. I invite any disagreement about this new content. Deco 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. JesseW 08:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template Self-Reference Avoidance Causes Technical Problems
I was recently browsing the category of NPOV disputes and I found it quite funny that the Talk Page for Fascism and Communism was listed on the category (talk pages shouldn't be subject to NPOV, should they? =P). Apparently, the template for NPOV dispute was moved by someone citing Avoid self-references to the talk page. According to this page, yeah, that technically would be correct. But it breaks the automatic generation of the NPOV disputes.

Furthermore, many of these templates are being put on the main articles, not the talk pages. The de-facto policy is to, actually, put the stub mark on the actual article, not the talk page. When people start arguing about whether or not the controversial tag should be put on the talk or the main article page, it's a needless argument (I saw this in Talk:Atheism. In short, this policy about templates is bloated and is near impossible to pull off, because of people's perceptions about these tags.

In that case, perhaps this page causes more problems than it causes when it starts talking about templates. Obviously you shouldn't say "This Wikipedia article discusses" inside an article, but if you consider the templates, I think this policy should be amended. But due to the self-referential nature of most templates, I think the only possible solution is to delete those clauses. Ambush Commander 21:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * EDIT: I just reread the clause, and realized that it discouraged moving those templates around. Maybe we should just make that more clear (because if people are citing this policy to move tags around then it certainly isn't clear enough)? Ambush Commander 21:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Templates are the main exception to the rule, as this page mentions a couple times. We don't want too many templates with self-reference, but quite a few are useful, and it's easy to eliminate them if necessary in great swaths by modifying the templates. Also, "in-development" pages are pretty much exempt from the rule, as in the case of stubs. Also, self-reference on talk pages and project pages is totally okay. Feel free to edit to make these points clearer if you wish. Deco 03:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that categories have to be linked like images. You have just (accidentally) added this talk page to the category. I fixed it. Deco 02:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links from the main namespace to the Wikipedia namespace
We have Template:In Wikipedia and the more versatile Template:Sr for links from the main namespace to e.g. the Wikipedia namespace. It seems these are acceptable in templates because for mirrors and forks they cause no inconvenience, mirrors and forks can simply blank the template. However, for unclear reasons Netoholic is against such links, with or without this template, see Templates_for_deletion and e.g. Mapquest. Any thoughts?--Patrick 09:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added instructions for use at Template talk:Sr. A template like this is pretty useless without an explanation. Hopefully, that will help settle the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:26, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent!--Patrick 21:53, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

PMID
What is to be done with PMID (which contains the text: For information on using PMIDs in Wikipedia, see PMID.)? Removing the offending text entirely seems a bit harsh. — Itai (f&t) 23:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, does this apply to Stub (disambiguation)? In other words, just how standard a policy is this - should I remove on sight, no questions asked, or are there any limitations? — Itai (f&t) 12:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * See the immediate preceding discussion here. It is precisely about templates for handling this sort of thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I used Template:In Wikipedia in PMID, but it doesn't work for Stub (disambiguation) (on account of the brackets). This could be solved if Template:In Wikipedia were to receive a parameter. (When will we finally have default values for parameters?) — Itai (f&t) 17:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia usage template
I have created template:project usage as an addition to template:selfref, for the specific purpose of usage conventions within Wikipedia. See natural number and billion for examples; there are probably many others where it should be added. Fredrik | talk 15:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I really do not like this template or concept. The point is to avoid self-references, not make them pretty or add them into articles to point out stylistic peculiarities of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

 * I am fully aware of the problem with self-references. However, some conventions need to be understood not only by editors but also by readers. The two examples above provide disambiguation, they are not referring to Wikipedia arbitrarily. Providing explanations in the articles about the terms in question is the best solution by far. Fredrik | talk 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is totally okay as long as it's only used where we already have links to project pages in the article namespace. We definitely don't want to add any more, just keep the ones people have gotten used to. Deco 02:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've addressed all objections in an overhaul of this template. It no longer refers to Wikipedia, and its documentation specifically forbids linking across namespaces. — Xiong 熊 talk * 14:48, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Too broad a policy?
One of the trigonometry articles contains this:

 * Many fields make use of trigonometry in a more advanced way than can be discussed in this brief article

It says "many fields", and an introductory textbook in any of those fields can be hundreds of pages long, so of course what it says remains true even if that Wikipedia article grows to the equivalent of 100 pages long. Do the reasons for objecting to self-reference in Wikipedia articles apply to the statement above? Someone has objected to this particular self-reference on the article's discussion page. See uses of trigonometry (currently undergoing a bit of an edit war, so maybe this won't be in the current version when you look). Michael Hardy 01:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a self-reference at all, in the sense of this rule. It is perfectly okay for the material to refer to the fact that it is in an encyclopedia having articles. The important thing is that it does not assume it is in Wikipedia, or make assumptions that the user is reading it on our website. A rule of thumb is, if it still makes sense if it's printed out and given to someone who's never heard of Wikipedia, it's fine.
 * An entirely separate issue is how well a fact ages. For example, to say "New York City has 8 million people" is not only lacking a clear source but unlikely to remain accurate indefinitely. Better is to say, "according to the 2000 U.S. census, New York City has over 8 million people". On the other hand, such context is sometimes elided in the interest of brevity. In your case, I would first attempt to edit out the source of conflict with something like "Many fields use trigonometry in advanced ways not discussed in this article." You may also wish to see Article size, which discusses our current guidelines regarding article length (although these may change). Deco 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Exmoor

Exmoor is loosely defined as an area of hilly open moorland in west Somerset and north Devon in South West England. It is named after the River Exe, the source of which is situated in the centre of the area, two miles north-west of Simonsbath. Exmoor is more precisely defined as the area of the former ancient royal hunting forest, also called Exmoor, which was officially surveyed 1815–1818 as 18810 acre in extent. The moor has given its name to a National Park, which includes the Brendon Hills, the East Lyn Valley, the Vale of Porlock and 55 km of the Bristol Channel coast. The total area of the Exmoor National Park is 692.8 km2, of which 71% is in Somerset and 29% in Devon.

The upland area is underlain by sedimentary rocks dating from the Devonian and early Carboniferous periods with Triassic and Jurassic age rocks on lower slopes. Where these reach the coast, cliffs are formed which are cut with ravines and waterfalls. It was recognised as a heritage coast in 1991. The highest point on Exmoor is Dunkery Beacon; at 519 m it is also the highest point in Somerset. The terrain supports lowland heath communities, ancient woodland and blanket mire which provide habitats for scarce flora and fauna. There have also been reports of the Beast of Exmoor, a cryptozoological cat roaming Exmoor. Several areas have been designated as Nature Conservation Review and Geological Conservation Review sites.

There is evidence of human occupation from the Mesolithic. This developed for agriculture and extraction of mineral ores into the Bronze and Iron Ages. The remains of standing stones, cairns and bridges can still be identified. The royal forest was granted a charter in the 13th century, however foresters who managed the area were identified in the Domesday Book. In the Middle Ages sheep farming was common with a system of agistment licensing the grazing of livestock as the Inclosure Acts divided up the land. The area is now used for a range of recreational purposes.

National character area
Exmoor has been designated as a national character area (No. 145) by Natural England, the public body responsible for England's natural environment. Neighbouring natural regions include The Culm to the southwest, the Devon Redlands to the south and the Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes to the east.

Exmoor National Park
Exmoor was designated a National Park in 1954, under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. The Exmoor National Park is primarily an upland area with a dispersed population living mainly in small villages and hamlets. The largest settlements are Porlock, Dulverton, Lynton, and Lynmouth, which together contain almost 40 per cent of the park's population. Lynton and Lynmouth are combined into one parish and are connected by the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway.

Exmoor was once a royal forest and hunting ground, covering 18810 acre, which was sold off in 1818. Several areas within the Exmoor National Park have been declared Sites of Special Scientific Interest due to their flora and fauna. This title earns the site some legal protection from development, damage and neglect. In 1993 an environmentally sensitive area was established within Exmoor. It is known as a perfect place for stargazing. In 2011, it was designated Europe’s first International Dark Sky Reserve by the International Dark-Sky Association.

Geology
Exmoor is an upland area formed almost exclusively from sedimentary rocks dating from the Devonian and early Carboniferous periods. The name of the geological period and system, 'Devonian', comes from Devon, as rocks of that age were first studied and described here. With the exception of a suite of Triassic and Jurassic age rocks forming the lower ground between Porlock and Timberscombe and from Minehead to Yarde (within Exmoor National Park but peripheral to the moor itself), all of the solid rocks of Exmoor are assigned to the Exmoor Group, which comprises a mix of gritstones, sandstones, slates, shales, limestone, siltstones and mudstones. Quartz and iron mineralisation can be detected in outcrops and subsoil. The Glenthorne area demonstrates the Trentishoe Member (formerly 'Formation') of the Hangman Sandstone Formation (formerly 'Group'). The Hangman Sandstone represents the Middle Devonian sequence of North Devon and Somerset. These unusual freshwater deposits in the Hangman Grits were mainly formed in desert conditions. As this area of Britain was not subject to glaciation, the plateau remains as a remarkably old landform. The bedrock and more recent superficial deposits are covered in part by moorland which is supported by wet, acid soil.

Coastline
Exmoor has 55 km of coastline. The highest sea cliff on mainland Britain (if a cliff is defined as having a slope greater than 60 degrees) is Great Hangman near Combe Martin at 318 m high, with a cliff face of 250 m. Its sister cliff is the 200 m Little Hangman, which marks the edge of Exmoor. The coastal hills reach a maximum height of 414 m at Culbone Hill.

Exmoor's woodlands sometimes reach the shoreline, especially between Porlock and Foreland Point, where they form the single longest stretch of coastal woodland in England and Wales. The Exmoor Coastal Heaths have been recognised as a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the diversity of plant species present.

The scenery of rocky headlands, ravines, waterfalls and towering cliffs gained the Exmoor coast recognition as a heritage coast in 1991. With its huge waterfalls and caves, this dramatic coastline has become an adventure playground for both climbers and explorers. The cliffs provide one of the longest and most isolated seacliff traverses in the UK. The South West Coast Path, at 1014 km the longest National Trail in England and Wales, starts at Minehead and runs along all of Exmoor's coast. There are small harbours at Lynmouth, Porlock Weir and Combe Martin. Once crucial to coastal trade, the harbours are now primarily used for pleasure; individually owned sailing boats and non-commercial fishing boats are often found in the harbours. The Valley of Rocks beyond Lynton is a deep dry valley that runs parallel to the nearby sea and is capped on the seaward side by large rocks, and Sexton's Burrows forms a natural breakwater to the harbour of Watermouth Bay on the coast.

Rivers
The high ground forms the catchment area for numerous rivers and streams. There are about 483 km of named rivers on Exmoor. The River Exe, after which Exmoor is named, rises at Exe Head near the village of Simonsbath, close to the Bristol Channel coast, but flows more or less directly due south, so that most of its length lies in Devon. It reaches the sea at a substantial ria (estuary) on the south (English Channel) coast of Devon. It has several tributaries which arise on Exmoor. The River Barle runs from northern Exmoor to join the River Exe at Exebridge, Devon. The river and the Barle Valley are both designated as biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Another tributary, the River Haddeo, flows from the Wimbleball Lake.

Most other rivers arising on Exmoor flow north to the Bristol Channel. These include the River Heddon, which runs along the western edges of Exmoor, reaching the North Devon coast at Heddon's Mouth, and the East and West Lyn rivers, which meet at Watersmeet immediately east of Lynmouth. Hoar Oak Water is a moorland tributary of the East Lyn River which also has its confluence there. The River Horner, which is also known as Horner Water, rises near Luccombe and flows into Porlock Bay near Hurlstone Point. The River Mole arises on the south-western flanks of Exmoor and is the major tributary of the River Taw, which itself flows northward from Dartmoor. Badgworthy Water is one of the small rivers running north to the coast and is associated with the Lorna Doone legends.

Climate
Along with the rest of South West England, Exmoor has a temperate climate which is generally wetter and milder than the rest of England. The mean annual temperature at Simonsbath is 8.3 °C with a seasonal and diurnal variation, but due to the modifying effect of the sea the range is less than in most other parts of the UK. January is the coldest month, with mean minimum temperatures between 1 and 2 C. July and August are the warmest months in the region, with mean daily maxima around 21 °C. In general, December is the month with the least sunshine and June the month with the most sun. The south-west of England has a favoured location with regard to the Azores high pressure when it extends its influence north-eastwards towards the UK, particularly in summer.

Cloud often forms inland, especially near hills, and reduce the amount of sunshine that reaches the park. The average annual sunshine is about 1,600 hours. Rainfall tends to be associated with Atlantic depressions or with convection. In summer, convection, caused by the sun heating the land surface more than the sea, sometimes forms rain clouds and at that time of year a large proportion of the rainfall comes from showers and thunderstorms. Annual precipitation varies from 800 mm in the east of the park to over 2000 mm at The Chains. However, in the 24 hours of 16 August 1952, more than 225 mm of rain fell at The Chains. This rainfall, which followed an exceptionally wet summer, led to disastrous flooding in Lynmouth with 34 dead and extensive damage to the small town.

Snowfall is very variable from year to year and ranges from 23 days on the high moors to about 6 on coastal areas. November to March have the highest mean wind speeds, with June to August having the lightest winds. The wind comes mostly from the south-west.

There are two Met Office Weather stations recording climate data within Exmoor: Liscombe and Nettlecombe.

History

There is evidence of occupation of the area by people from Mesolithic times onward. In the Neolithic period, people started to manage animals and grow crops on farms cleared from the woodland, rather than act purely as hunters and as gatherers. It is also likely that extraction and smelting of mineral ores to make metal tools, weapons, containers and ornaments started in the late Neolithic, and continued into the Bronze and Iron Ages. An earthen ring at Parracombe is believed to be a Neolithic henge dating from 5000–4000 BC, and Cow Castle, which is where White Water meets the River Barle, is an Iron Age fort at the top of a conical hill.

Tarr Steps are a prehistoric (c. 1000 BC) clapper bridge across the River Barle, about 4 km south-east of Withypool and 6 km north-west of Dulverton. The stone slabs weigh up to 5 tonnes apiece, and the bridge has been designated by English Heritage as a grade I listed building, to recognise its special architectural, historical or cultural significance. There is little evidence of Roman occupation apart from two fortlets on the coast. Lanacombe is the site of several standing stones and cairns which have been scheduled as ancient monuments. The stone settings are between 30 cm and 65 cm high. A series of Bronze Age stone cairns are closely associated with the standing stones.

Holwell Castle, at Parracombe, was a Norman motte-and-bailey castle built to guard the junction of the east–west and north–south trade routes, enabling movement of people and goods and the growth of the population. Alternative explanations for its construction suggest it may have been constructed to obtain taxes at the River Heddon bridging place, or to protect and supervise silver mining in the area around Combe Martin. It was 40 m in diameter and 6.2 m high above the bottom of a rock cut ditch which is 2.7 m deep. It was built, in the late 11th or early 12th century. The earthworks of the castle are still clearly visible from a nearby footpath, but there is no public access to them.

Establishment of royal forest
According to the late 13th-century Hundred Rolls, King Henry II of England (d. 1189) gave William of Wrotham the office of steward of Exmoor. The terms steward, warden and forester appear to be synonymous for the king's chief officer of the royal forest.

Wardens
The first recorded wardens were Dodo, Almer & Godric who were named in the Domesday Book (1086) as "foresters of Widepolla", Withypool having been the ancient capital of the forest. The family of Denys were associated with Ilchester and "Petherton". William of Wrotham, who died in 1217, was steward of the forests of Exmoor and North Petherton, Somerset. Walter and Robert were named as foresters of Exmoor when they witnessed an early 13th-century grant to Forde Abbey. In 1276 the jurors of Brushford manor made a complaint about John de Camera in the Court of Exchequer in which he was described as forester of Exmoor.

William Lucar of "Wythecomb", the brother of Elizabeth Lucar, was forester temp. under Henry VI, between 1422 and 1461. William de Botreaux, 3rd Baron Botreaux was appointed in 1435 warden of the forests of Exmoor and Neroche for life by Richard Duke of York. The Botreaux family had long held the manor of Molland at the southern edge of Exmoor, but were probably resident mainly at North Cadbury in Somerset. On 10 May 1461 William Bourchier, 9th Baron FitzWarin, feudal baron of Bampton was appointed by King Edward IV as Master Forester of the Forests of Exmoor and Neroche for life. Sir John Poyntz of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire, was warden or chief forester of Exmoor in 1568 when he brought an action in the Court of Exchequer against Henry Rolle (of Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe), the powerful lord of the manors of Exton, Hawkridge and Withypool.

In 1608 Sir Hugh Pollard was named as chief forester in a suit brought before the Court of Exchequer by his deputy William Pincombe. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde, was named as Keeper of Exmoor Forest in 1660 and 1661. James Boevey was a forester in the 17th century. Sir Richard Acland (or possibly Sir Thomas Dyke Acland) was the last forester up to 1818. One of the roles of the Warden was Master of Staghounds and this role continued to be exercised by the Master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, a position extant today. By 1820 the royal forest had been divided up. A quarter of the forest, 10262 acre, was sold to John Knight (1765–1850) in 1818. This section comprises the present Exmoor Parish, whose parish church is situated in Simonsbath.

Wool trade
The parish of Exmoor Forest was part of the Hundred of Williton and Freemanners. During the Middle Ages, sheep farming for the wool trade came to dominate the economy. The wool was spun into thread on isolated farms and collected by merchants to be woven, fulled, dyed and finished in thriving towns such as Dunster. The land started to be enclosed and from the 17th century onwards larger estates developed, leading to establishment of areas of large regular shaped fields. During the 16th and 17th centuries the commons were overstocked with agisted livestock, from farmers outside the immediate area who were charged for the privilege. This led to disputes about the number of animals allowed and the enclosure of land. In the mid-17th century James Boevey was the warden. The house that he built at Simonsbath was the only one in the forest for 150 years. When the royal forest was sold off in 1818, John Knight bought the Simonsbath House and the accompanying farm for £50,000. He set about converting the royal forest into agricultural land. He and his family also built most of the large farms in the central section of the moor as well as 35.4 km of metalled access roads to Simonsbath and a 46.7 km wall around his estate, much of which still survives.

In the mid-19th century a mine was developed alongside the River Barle. The mine was originally called Wheal Maria, then changed to Wheal Eliza. It was a copper mine from 1845–54 and then an iron mine until 1857, although the first mining activity on the site may be from 1552. At Simonsbath, a restored Victorian water-powered sawmill, which was damaged in the floods of 1992, has now been purchased by the National Park and returned to working order; it is now used to make the footpath signs, gates, stiles and bridges for various sites in the park.

Ecology
In addition to the Exmoor Coastal Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), two other areas are specifically designated. North Exmoor covers 12005.3 ha and includes the Dunkery Beacon and the Holnicote and Horner Water Nature Conservation Review sites, and the Chains Geological Conservation Review site. The Chains site is nationally important for its south-western lowland heath communities and for transitions from Ancient woodland through upland heath to blanket mire. The site is also of importance for its breeding bird communities, its large population of the nationally rare heath fritillary (Mellicta athalia), an exceptional woodland lichen flora and its palynological interest of deep peat on the Chains.

The South Exmoor SSSI is smaller, covering 3132.7 ha and including the River Barle and its tributaries with submerged plants such as alternate water-milfoil (Myriophyllum alterniflorum). There are small areas of semi-natural woodland within the site, including some which are ancient. The most abundant tree species is sessile oak (Quercus petraea), the shrub layer is very sparse and the ground flora includes bracken, bilberry and a variety of mosses. The heaths have strong breeding populations of birds, including whinchat (Saxicola rubetra) and European stonechat (Saxicola rubicola). Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) are common near stone boundary walls and other stony places. Grasshopper warbler (Locustella naevia) breed in scrub and tall heath. Trees on the moorland edges provide nesting sites for Lesser redpoll (Acanthis cabaret), common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and raven (Corvus corax).

Flora

Uncultivated heath and moorland cover about a quarter of Exmoor landscape. Some moors are covered by a variety of grasses and sedges, while others are dominated by heather. There are also cultivated areas including the Brendon Hills, which lie in the east of the National Park. There are also 3000 ha of Forestry Commission woodland, comprising a mixture of broad-leaved (oak, ash and hazel) and conifer trees. Horner Woodlands and Tarr Steps woodlands are prime examples. The country's highest beech tree, 350 m above sea level, is at Birch Cleave at Simonsbath but beech in hedgebanks grow up to 490 m. At least two species of whitebeam: Sorbus subcuneata and Sorbus 'Taxon D' are unique to Exmoor. These woodlands are home to lichens, mosses and ferns. Exmoor is the only national location for the lichens Biatoridium delitescens, Rinodina fimbriata and Rinodina flavosoralifera, the latter having been found only on one individual tree.

In 2024, plans were unveiled to plant approximately 38,000 trees near the sea on Exmoor as part of a larger initiative led by the National Trust to plant over 100,000 trees in northern Devon, aimed at supporting Celtic rainforests. Among the species earmarked for planting is the nearly extinct Devon whitebeam, a tree found only in England's West Country and in Ireland. It can reproduce without fertilization and once had its edible fruit sold as "sorb apples" in Devon markets.

Fauna
Sheep have grazed on the moors for more than 3,000 years, shaping much of the Exmoor landscape by feeding on moorland grasses and heather. Traditional breeds include Exmoor Horn, Cheviot and Whiteface Dartmoor and Greyface Dartmoor sheep. North Devon cattle are also farmed in the area. Exmoor ponies can be seen roaming freely on the moors. They are a landrace rather than a breed of pony, and may be the closest breed to wild horses remaining in Europe; they are also one of the oldest breeds of pony in the world. The ponies are rounded up once a year to be marked and checked over. In 1818 Sir Thomas Acland, the last warden of Exmoor, took thirty ponies and established the Acland Herd, now known as the Anchor Herd, whose direct descendants still roam the moor. In the Second World War the moor became a training ground, and the breed was nearly killed off, with only 50 ponies surviving the war. The ponies are classified as endangered by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, with only 390 breeding females left in the UK. In 2006 a Rural Enterprise Grant, administered locally by the South West Rural Development Service, was obtained to create a new Exmoor Pony Centre at Ashwick, at a disused farm with 7 ha of land with a further 56 ha of moorland.

Red deer have a stronghold on the moor and can be seen on quiet hillsides in remote areas, particularly in the early morning. The Emperor of Exmoor, a red stag (Cervus elaphus), was Britain's largest known wild land animal, until it was killed in October 2010. The moorland habitat is also home to hundreds of species of birds and insects. Birds seen on the moor include merlin, peregrine falcon, Eurasian curlew, European stonechat, dipper, Dartford warbler and ring ouzel. Black grouse and red grouse are now extinct on Exmoor, probably as a result of a reduction in habitat management, and for the former species, an increase in visitor pressure.

Beast
The Beast of Exmoor is a cryptozoological cat (see phantom cat) that is reported to roam Exmoor. There have been numerous reports of eyewitness sightings. The BBC calls it "the famous-yet-elusive beast of Exmoor". Sightings were first reported in the 1970s although it became notorious in 1983, when a South Molton farmer claimed to have lost over 100 sheep in the space of three months, all of them apparently killed by violent throat injuries. In response to these reports Royal Marine Commandos were deployed from bases in the West Country to watch for the mythical beast from covert observation points. After 6 months no sightings had been made by the Royal Marines and the deployments were ended. Descriptions of its colouration range from black to tan or dark grey. It is possibly a cougar or black leopard which was released after a law was passed in 1976 making it illegal for them to be kept in captivity outside zoos. In 2006, the British Big Cats Society reported that a skull found by a Devon farmer was that of a puma; however, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) states, "Based on the evidence, Defra does not believe that there are big cats living in the wild in England."

Government and politics
The National Park, 71% of which is in Somerset and 29% in Devon, has a resident population of 10,600. It was designated a National Park in 1954, under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. About three quarters of the park is privately owned, made up of numerous private estates. The largest landowners are the National Trust, which owns over 10% of the land, and the National Park Authority, which owns about 7%. Other areas are owned by the Forestry Commission, Crown Estate and Water Companies. The largest private landowner is the Badgworthy Land Company, which represents hunting interests.

From 1954 on, local government was the responsibility of the district and county councils, which remain responsible for the social and economic well-being of the local community. Since 1997 the Exmoor National Park Authority, which is known as a 'single purpose' authority, has taken over some functions to meet its aims to "conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks" and "promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the parks by the public", including responsibility for the conservation of the historic environment.

The Park Authority receives 80% of its funding as a direct grant from the government. The Park Authority Committee consists of members from parish and county councils, and six appointed by the Secretary of State. The work is carried out by 80 staff including rangers, volunteers and a team of estate workers who carry out a wide range of tasks including maintaining the many miles of rights of way, hedge laying, fencing, swaling, walling, invasive weed control and habitat management on National Park Authority land. There are ongoing debates between the authority and farmers over the biological monitoring of SSSIs, showing the need for a controlled regime of grazing and burning; farmers claim that these regimes are not practical or effective in the long term.

The National Park Authority operates CareMoor for Exmoor as an opportunity for those that appreciate the area to give back, with donations supporting conservation and access projects.

Sport and recreation
Sightseeing, walking, cycling and mountain biking taking in Exmoor's dramatic heritage coastline and moorland countryside scenery are the main attractions. The South West Coast Path starts at Minehead and follows all along the Exmoor coast before continuing to Poole. The Coleridge Way is an 82 km footpath which follows the walks taken by poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Lynmouth, starting from Coleridge Cottage at Nether Stowey in the Quantocks where he once lived. The Two Moors Way runs from Ivybridge in South Devon to Lynmouth on the coast of North Devon, crossing parts of both Dartmoor and Exmoor. Both of these walks intersect with the South West Coast Path, Britain's longest National Trail. Other Exmoor walking trails include the Tarka Trail, Samaritans Way South West, Macmillan Way West, Exe Valley Way and Celtic Way Exmoor Option.

In addition to long distant walks the Exmoor National Park Authority promote a series 'top walks' in 3 collections of Exmoor Strolls (step and stile free routes more accessible routes), Exmoor Explorers (shorter walks to discover the best of Exmoor) and Exmoor Classics (longer walks to discover more of Exmoor).

For others, although the hunting of animal with hounds was made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004, the Exmoor hunts still meet in full regalia and there is a campaign to resurrect this rural sport. Nine hunts cover the area—the Devon and Somerset Staghounds and the Quantock Staghounds, the Exmoor, Dulverton West, Dulverton Farmers and West Somerset Foxhounds, the Minehead Harriers, the West Somerset Beagles and the North Devon Beagles. During the spring, amateur steeplechase meetings (point-to-points) are run by hunts at temporary courses such as Bratton Down and Holnicote. These, along with thoroughbred racing and pony racing, are an opportunity for farmers, hunt staff and the public to witness a day of traditional country entertainment.

Places of interest
The attractions of Exmoor include 208 Scheduled monuments, 16 conservation areas, and other open access land as designated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Exmoor receives approximately 1.4 million visitor days per year which include single day visits and those for longer periods.

The Exmoor National Park Authority operates three Exmoor National Park Centres in Dulverton, Dunster and Lynmouth to provide information and inspiration for users of the National Park.

Attractions on the coast include the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway, which connects Lynton to neighbouring picturesque Lynmouth at the confluence of the East Lyn and West Lyn rivers, nearby Valley of Rocks and Watersmeet.

Woody Bay, a few miles west of Lynton, is home to the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway, a narrow-gauge railway which once connected the twin towns of Lynton and Lynmouth to Barnstaple, about 31 km (just over 19 miles) away.

Further along the coast, Porlock is a quiet coastal town with an adjacent salt marsh nature reserve and a harbour at nearby Porlock Weir. Watchet is a historic harbour town with a marina and is home to a carnival, which is held annually in July.

Inland, many of the attractions are small towns and villages or linked to the river valleys, such as the ancient clapper bridge at Tarr Steps and the Snowdrop Valley near Wheddon Cross, which is carpeted in snowdrops in February and, later, displays bluebells. Withypool is also in the Barle Valley, the Two Moors Way passes through the village. As well as Dunster Castle, Dunster's other attractions include a priory, dovecote, yarn market, inn, packhorse bridge, mill and a stop on the West Somerset Railway. Exford lies on the River Exe.

Exmoor has been the setting for several novels including the 19th-century Lorna Doone: A Romance of Exmoor by R. D. Blackmore, and Margaret Drabble's 1998 novel The Witch of Exmoor. The park was featured on the television programme Seven Natural Wonders twice, as one of the wonders of the West Country.

Wheal Eliza Mine on the River Barle near Simonsbath was an unsuccessful copper and iron mine.

Near Wheddon Cross is Snowdrop Valley, which becomes filled with thousands of little white flowers called snowdrops during early spring. Within the valley is a sawmill, formerly powered by the River Avill, which runs through the valley.

title: Exmoor