Talk:Korean Demilitarized Zone

message: Tae Sung Dong and Kijong-dong were the only villages allowed by the armistice committee to remain within the boundaries of the DMZ.
Is there information how many and which villages were destroyed/dissolved when the DMZ was established? --::Slomox:: >< 10:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Villages 

message: Looking at this list with non-American eyes, it seems to be some bias here. It seems, that when South Korea or the Americans cross the DMZ it's almost always an "accident" (3 out of 4). The use of the word "infiltrator" and "infiltrators" are heavily used, only when the article is describing North Koreans crossing the DMZ. I find it hard to believe that Americans and South Koreans have never tried to "infiltrate" the North or that almost all American crossings were accidental. The July 14, 1977 incident's use of the word "straying" gives me the impression that the helicopter was of course and that it was unintentional. I'm not saying this is not the case, it just seems like there is very little NPOV.
July 14, 1977: An American CH-47 Chinook helicopter was shot down after *straying* into the north over the DMZ.
December 6, 1979: US patrol in the DMZ *accidentally* crosses the MDL into a North Korean minefield.
October 26, 2000: Two US aircraft observing a ROK army military exercise *accidentally cross* over the DMZ.
62North (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because when the US or ROKs have crossed the DMZ its only by a few hundred meters, unlike the KPA who send commandos deep into South Korea and dig incursion tunnels, not something that happens by accident! Mztourist (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents and Incursion 

message: The title of the article is "Korean Demilitarized Zone".
The opening paragraph describes it as the "most heavily militarized border in the world".
No explanation is given of this apparent (glaring?) contradiction. Am I missing something here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.188.104 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The zone (i.e. the 4km wide strip) is demilitarized, outside of that strip both North and South Korea maintain large military forces along the entire border.Mztourist (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not trying to be funny here 

message: From the map, it appears that the North half of the DMZ extends to the west along the north bank of the Han River estuary for quite a distance. However, there does not seem to be a corresponding South half of the DMZ on the south bank and islands of South Korea on the other side -- the South half of the DMZ seems to stop when the DMZ reaches the Han River. If this is so, the article should explain why. --24.130.148.132 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced DMZ in Han estuary 

message: The German version of this article claims that an arte documentary claims that the korean wall did actually exist. However, the English version says it didn't. Can someone tell me which version is right? -- 2001:A60:21A1:C801:5106:7C4:1FFB:FA91 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is mentioned in the section Korean Wall. The North Koreans maintain that there is a wall and in certain sections of the DMZ anti-tank berms and terrain features create the impression of a wall. Unlike the Berlin Wall there is no continuous linked wall and any claim that a wall has been created by the US to keep South Koreans in is nonsense. Also remember that in June 1950 North Korea invaded the South seizing Seoul within 3 days, so the South Koreans are keen to prevent a repeat of that, so it would be understandable if they chose to create anti-invasion obstacles  Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Wall or not to wall? 

message: I propose the Incidents list be merged into List of border incidents involving North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

text: , they should be moved to List of border incidents involving North Korea and a brief summary should be put in place of the list on this page. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no objections I have now done this.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Incidents 

message: Would a moped fit? Is that a vehicle? After seeing that mexican druglord with his bike in the tunnel, how can no vehicles fit this tunnel? This unsourced note needs nuking. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yes a moped would fit, I have changed it to military vehicles which I believe gets the point across without over-lengthening the sentence. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I visited the 3rd tunnel in June of 2016. The tunnel went from ~6' down to maybe 5' or 4'10". The width was about 6' with pipes running along either side. If you had a moped and were careful about staying ducked down, you could absolutely drive it through (though the air would get pretty filled with exhaust... there is no real ventilation down there). Azotochtli (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the tunnels are not wide enough for tanks or vehicles" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Korean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905081008/http://imcom.korea.army.mil:80/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp to http://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The old lede contained items that were not featured in the main article. I've transferred the previous lede into a new section headed 'Location', and drafted a new lede, aimed at summarizing the article as a whole. The new section is referenced in the Contents box, but for some reason has appeared above the box, not below it. I'm sure it's a simple problem, but I don't know enough to fix it. Sorry, wiki. Valetude (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lede 16/11/15 

message: The following sentence has a strange reference. "Also on a regular basis troops on both sides assigned to outpost along the DMZ will take pot shots at each other."
One of it's references just says "Bermudez (3030) pg 1".
I don't understand the rules of referencing things here, but I know that isn't a real reference. What is Bermudez? Am I supposed to guess? "pg.1" suggests it might be a book but no isbn is listed. "(3030)" is not an isbn. It's just weird how some things get pounced on by the editors here for supposedly not following guidelines but other things like I just showed are perfectly fine even though it is undeniably a phony reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.112.105 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Bermudez is listed under "References" at the bottom of the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it is, because pg. 1 of that book says nothing of the sort (ISBN different, but one would expect the fist page to be equivalent). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence was added after the reference was added: see  According to the edit summary, it was based on anecdotal evidence. I don't think it is encyclopedic, so I will remove it. Also, I will fix the date for Bermudez which for some reason was changed to "3030".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This claim (under "Location") has been tagged as dubious. It is not supported by the references given. Bermudez says that the DPRK is the most militarised country. The State Department fact sheet does not say it either, but maybe the 2006 text did. Based on a quick Google search, there are a lot of sites that say this, but maybe they got it from this article. For example, this Foreign Policy article calls it "one of the most heavily militarized borders" What is the basis of this tagging? Is there another border that is more militarized?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused what point you're trying to make. You say it is not supported by the references given yet you are asking what the basis of this tagging is. If it's the fact that I chose the dubious tag, then I probably did not notice the sources and should change it to "failed verification". Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a slightly complicated situation. But I would assume that you tagged it as dubious because you thought it was untrue, not just because of a problem with sourcing.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I thought it was untrue, especially because there was no source and it was highly likely that someone had presented their own claim. However, as can be seen in the References section on this talk page, there indeed was a WP:OR claim present but in the next sentence, and the citations looked as though they were for that sentence. Now that the OR has been removed and the citations are present in their correct location, I have realised my error and have corrected the tag. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the text, citing the Foreign Policy source mentioned above. If anyone has better information or sources, let them add them!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most heavily militarized border in the world 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Korean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330022530/http://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp to http://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309084651/http://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/dmz/dmz_20.htm to http://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/dmz/dmz_20.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308122740/http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2000/12/msg00041.html to http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2000/12/msg00041.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Korean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160520080629/http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/DMZ.HTM to http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/DMZ.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :In 1966 it was first proposed to turn the DMZ into a national park.
The citation is to a 1967 article by Glenn D. Paige and apparently originates with him. I haven't been able to read the article, but the suggestion seems eccentric and speculative. It predisposes unification of the country, which has still not occurred. I don't see what this adds to the article, apart from confusing and bemusing readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now been able to access the article, and this is what it says: "The renewed killing and tension vitiated one of the most creative ideas of 1966 - to turn the DMZ into a national park where the unique profusion of plant and animal life that has grown up there relatively undisturbed since 1953 might be enjoyed and subjected to scientific inquiry".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  National park? 

message: It would be really helpful if we worked together to find out.2601:447:4101:41F9:E8A0:3314:B749:B856 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder want else was in the October 26 Protocols 

message: Shouldn't there be only one way to spell it in the article?--Adûnâi (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontline vs front-line 

message: Hello, Please refer to one of the lastest videos about History of Korean Demilitarized Zone.
I think it is quite a good summary of just 7 minutes 8 seconds from over 70 years of several events.  </br>
As you may have understood, because of this DMZ (Power game of the Soviet Union and U.S.) and  Korean War;  about 3 million people were terribly killed or awfully wounded !!!.</br>
If your close family members were killed during the Korean War and you yearn for them, the meaning of DMZ could have been totally different from any other people. </br>
You would also eager to finish the Korean War 1953 as you have felt the horrible situation of war.</br>
*North and South Korea Has The Deadliest Border In the World: Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-cKa6zz0i4  Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Korean Demilitarized Zone 

message: For watchers’ information – the article features a poor map for almost 15 years; see  for details. ’m unwilling to blame the original artist for the exaggeration while nobody alerted the community about the error, including numerous users who localized the map and converted it to SVG. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor map

message: How come soldiers were able to take pictures during the war? I have one of DMZ fence and memorial of flowers and others of Army tank and soldiers, a make shift movie theater for soldiers, and one of a Big tent. Plus some of men deployed in a ship to War in Korea. Does anyone know Jack Higgons? He is most likely passed away. Bit this is notca forgotten war, my father in law was in. He was in intelligence in communication and a warrant officer. Never received his purple 💜! Don't abuse DOC was his nickname. 208.54.175.214 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures taken during 1950-1953