A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theOn this day section onJuly 27, 2007,July 27, 2010,July 27, 2012,July 27, 2013, andJuly 27, 2016.

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

KoreaHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related toKorea. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project and contribute to thediscussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Korean military history task force. Military history:Asian /Korean /North America /United StatesStart‑class This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated asStart-class on the project'squality scale. This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation:criterion not met Coverage and accuracy:criterion not met Structure:criterion met Grammar and style:criterion met Supporting materials:criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Archives

1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a pretty massive difference between accidentally stumbling across the line and sending armed operatives deep into the country with specific missions. This is why the language is the way it is. If a US special operations team was caught 10 miles over the line fully geared up then that event would be called infiltrating. However I think most people would agree that a Chinook (transport aircraft, not combat) straying over an imaginary line (that the pilot is relying on both sides to agree on using multiple maps, GPS units, etc.) is an accident.SoLongSidekick (talk)23:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.145.188.104 (talk)18:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 obstaclesMztourist (talk)08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can readthis--ZKang123 (talk)08:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the Incidents list be merged intoList of border incidents involving North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk)08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportMztourist (talk)10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they should be moved toList 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)[reply]

As there have been no objections I have now done this.--Jack Upland (talk)00:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link onKorean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/20090905081008/http://imcom.korea.army.mil:80/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp tohttp://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.

YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}08:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the source about North Korea laying landlines in the southern side of the DMZ. The UN has not released its findings on the August 2015 land mine incident, and therefore the incident cannot be blamed on anyone because there is no publicly available proof. The area was well-lit, regularly-patrolled, and recorded at all times. The mine's exploded a half mile south of the southern part of the DML, so it is impossible to believe there would be no evidence, and that the soldiers would not get caught.MikeJB79 (talk)16:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by118.211.112.105 (talk)13:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudez is listed under "References" at the bottom of the page.--Jack Upland (talk)00:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is, becausepg. 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)[reply]

That sentence was added after the reference was added: see[1] 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)[reply]

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, thisForeign Policy article calls it "one of the most heavily militarized borders"[2] What is the basis of this tagging? Is there another border that is more militarized?--Jack Upland (talk)06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 orsee what I've been doing)16:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 theReferences section on this talk page, there indeed was aWP:OR claim present but in the next sentence, and the citations looked as though they were forthat 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 orsee what I've been doing)03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the text, citing theForeign Policy source mentioned above. If anyone has better information or sources, let them add them!--Jack Upland (talk)08:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links onKorean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20090330022530/http://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp tohttp://imcom.korea.army.mil/imakoroweb/sites/local/news/020808_IMCOMK_DMZ.asp
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20070309084651/http://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/dmz/dmz_20.htm tohttp://www.panmunjomtour.com/english/dmz/dmz_20.htm
• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20120308122740/http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2000/12/msg00041.html tohttp://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.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)21:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onKorean Demilitarized Zone. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20160520080629/http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/DMZ.HTM tohttp://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.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)22:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 1966 it was first proposed to turn the DMZ into a national park.

The citation is to a 1967 article byGlenn 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't there be only one way to spell it in the article?--Adûnâi (talk)10:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please refer to one of the lastest videos about History ofKorean Demilitarized Zone.I think it is quite a good summary of just7 minutes 8 seconds fromover 70 years of several events.
As you may have understood, because of thisDMZ (Power game of theSoviet Union andU.S.) andKorean War; about3 million people wereterribly killed orawfully wounded !!!.
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.
You would also eager to finish the Korean War 1953 as you have felt the horrible situation of war.

• North and South Korea Has The Deadliest Border In the World: Link:^[1]Goodtiming8871 (talk)10:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For watchers’ information – the article featuresa poor map for almost 15 years; see Media related toMaps exaggerating the Demilitarized Zone of Korea‎ at Wikimedia Commons for details.I’m unwilling to blame the original artist for the exaggeration whilenobody 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)[reply]

• Selected anniversaries (July 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2013)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2016)
• C-Class Korea-related articles
• High-importance Korea-related articles
• Korean military history task force articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Korean military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles

• Selected anniversaries articles
• Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Asian military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Asian military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Korean military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Korean military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• North American military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• North American military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• United States military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• United States military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy