Removed from articleEdit

The Demilitarized Zone was named after the Demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula, from the mid-20th to the early 21st Centuries, when the peninsula was split into two countries, known as North and South Korea.

I doubt that this is the in-universe namesake of the DMZ, and I don't know if this is important information from a production POV. The two planets don't seem to exist either. -- Cid Highwind 15:31, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the Cardassian DMZ named after the DMZ of Korea, Earth? The Korean DMZ must be the most well-known DMZ to this day.
Btw, those purported planets of "Seoul III" and "Sokcho IV" were just joke entries. Sorry about that. (lol) Both of them are real-world cities near the Korean DMZ.
By the way, does any Star Trek apocrypha anywhere tell us what happens to both of the Koreas in the future? I know Harry Kim is of Korean ancestry, but he never mentioned anything about his homeland. I'm 1/2 Korean, so I'm also interested in knowing what happens to Korea in Star Trek's timeline. -- 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Korean DMZ being the namesake for this DMZ was never mentioned in-universe (basically meaning, as a part of on-screen dialogue or similar), so it shouldn't be part of this article. "Behind the scenes", it might have been the namesake, but even then a source (interview, making of, ...) should be referenced if that info is included in the article as background info. Without such source, it shouldn't be included at all, I think. -- Cid Highwind 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cid is correct about including such information. Also, the term "demilitarized zone" has entered the lexicon as a generalized military term meaning an area, usually the frontier or boundary between two or more groups, where military activity is not permitted. The first use I can find of the term "demilitarized zone" is in Article V of the Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, dated July 20, 1949. See As to what happens to Korea in Trek, I have no recollection of a specific reference. Like the U.S., its future is very conjectural. Aholland 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Line misleading?Edit

Article currently reads:

Although the Maquis gained no official support from the Federation, many in the Federation (including Starfleet) were sympathetic to their cause and covertly provided aid. (DS9: "The Maquis, Part I", "The Maquis, Part II"; TNG: "Preemptive Strike")

I've got my doubts about the accuracy of the whole statement after the phrase "to their cause". By adding in "and covertly provided aid", it makes it sound like many non-Maquis Starfleet personnel were providing aid to the Maquis. I think the bulk of evidence suggests that, while many may have had sympathy for the plight of the Federation citizens on the Cardassian side, the litmus test for being a Starfleet officer being a Maquis was essentially whether or not their sympathies translated to action. Those that crossed the terms of the treaty were Maquis, subject to severe punishment — even if they happened to be wearing a Starfleet uniform at the time. The way the sentence reads it almost makes it sound like there's this whole underground movement in Starfleet of people paying lip service to the treaty, but secretly supplying the Maquis. The reaction of Janeway, Picard and Sisko, and their subordinates, doesn't support that contention. And I'm not sure there's a canonical example of a Starfleet officer supplying the Maquis but remaining fully loyal to Starfleet. I mean, the term "Maquis" doesn't define a race, but a political belief that compels action towards a common goal. If you believe it — and especially act upon it — you are a Maquis, whatever your day job is.

Beyond all this, though, I'm also uncomfortable with the phrase "many in the Federation". We're talking about an insanely small portion of (ex)-Federation space here. That's why the Federation allowed the creation of the DMZ in the first place. Had it been some huge chunk of space, with vast populations, there's no way they would've done it. It's just outposts and small colonies. Sure, that territory is important to the people living there, but in the grand scheme of the Federation, it's an "acceptable loss", distant to the main region of the Federation. Very few Federation citizens would've been affected by the creation of this DMZ, or it wouldn't have been politically possible for the leaders of the Federation. So I seriously doubt that "many" Federation citizens actually give a damn. Those that do are probably only offended at a theoretical, this-is-a-bad-precedent-to-set kinda way — not because they've been physically separated from their loved ones. Would "many" Starfleet officers or Federation citizens risked the severe penalties of violating the treaty? I somehow doubt it.

Because I'm "not sure" though, I leave the text unmolested to promote discussion. CzechOut | 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis seems on-point to me. You're right that there is no evidence of a secret underground group of Starfleet officers working to help the Maquis, but remaining in Starfleet. Perhaps individuals, but even those (such as Eddington and Hudson) eventually went to directly help the Maquis. In my opinion you are also correct to say that "many" in the Federation is a stretch. We have very little evidence of what popular opinion was of the Maquis or the treaty in the bulk of the Federation. Certainly not enough to say "many". 31dot 02:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Cardassian-Federation border

Can you spot the DMZ on this map?

Is this image confirmed in dialogue as showing the DMZ? 'Cause though it clearly shows the Cardassian border, It seems to me that the DMZ is simply omitted from this map (unless it's very very thin). I've already added a picture showing the DMZ much more clearly to the article, but perhaps this map should just be removed from the article. -- Capricorn 08:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardassian Citizens Of The Federation?Edit

There's Cardassian colonies in Federation space after the treaty, right? Does this mean there's Federation citizens that are Cardassian? I'd say so, and it raises an interesting point, IMHO. MaGnUs 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Minos KorvaEdit

Wouldn't this planet be at least near, if not in the DMZ since it was under contention in TNG. - Archduk3:talk 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)