Talk:Frozen conflict

message: This Council of Europe website , 
especially this page  may help. – Kaihsu 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

message: "Therefore, legally the conflict can start again at any moment, creating an environment of insecurity and instability." I dont think any definiton of 'legal' can be applied here. I think its an assumption that all parties to all conflicts in all 'frozen conflicts' have been arrived at by a framework of law and statute that legalised the conflict. Suggest removal of the word 'legally'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.233.53 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Legally

message: This mentions a description  of the N. Ireland situation as a frozen conflict. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of Northern Ireland should be removed because (1) There is an existing peace treaty known as the Good Friday Agreement, (2) It would be absurd to use the words of a Belgian MEP as evidence to the contrary of that, (3) Even if one acknowledges his comment: it is rhetorical. Wikipedia should favour the legal position and not take sides in political debates, (4) If we include everyone who has described a situation as a frozen-conflict and not actual frozen-conflicts this article would look ridiculous 94roger (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reaction for almost a year (!). Removed. --Somerby (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: The criteria for inclusion and exclusion in the article needs work. For example I noticed that Gibraltar is included but the more controversial Falkland Islands are not. Also is it wise to include conflicts and then under them to say they have been settled? For example the Korea entry says the two sides agreed to settle the war in 2018. However it makes no mention of the fact these peace talks failed.
94roger (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion and exclusion criteria 

message: Gibraltar was established as a British colony by the Peace of Utrecht, signed by Spain, France, Great Britain and others. It is now an British overseas territory internationally recognised in the UN. Spain's claim to Gibraltar doesn't share the same weight as, let's say, the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, as northern Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey and no treaty has ever been signed.
I suspect including Gibraltar in this article has a political motivation. I lived in Spain for a while and the Spanish government has always used the Gibraltar argument as smokescreen to cover up political corruption. Nevertheless, with the same logic, I could also add Ceuta and Melilla as 'Spanish occupations' of Moroccan territory, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.60.124 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Gibraltar a 'frozen conflict'? 

message: Is there any reason the EZLN and the situation in Chiapas isn't listed here? Peace accords were drafted, but never ratified, and have been violated. Hostile paramilitaries are still active, and the most recent small outbreak of violence was in 2020, but overall the violence has stopped, but the conflict has never been resolved.
It seems like a pretty straightforward frozen conflict to my inexpert eye, and the EZLN Wikipedia page calls it a frozen conflict, but I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing. 67.248.114.77 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  EZLN, Chiapas? 

message: War in Ukraine has drastically worsened and is no longer frozen, Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is over. It's time to find a new image to portray frozen conflicts. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is out of date