Talk:Agree to disagree

This article was nominated for deletion on 20:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Etymology

The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology articles

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

VfD[edit]

On May 10, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Agree to disagree for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Agree that they disagree"[edit]

I removed the following sentence:

"Agreeing to disagree" is a common phrase in English which may be better described as a situation where the parties agree that they disagree.

I (respectfully) disagree with this interpretation, because I would argue that it can apply even when the parties do not "agree to disagree." Two people can both agree that their positions are incompatible, and hence "agree that they disagree," but they won't necessarily compromise by dropping the issue. Maybe a better way to put it is that the phrase means something like "agree that their disagreement is not worthy of continued conflict," but putting that in myself would obviously be original research. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier uses[edit]

I've edited the article because I came across a Wesley reference to Whitefield having used 'agree to disagree' (Whitefield died before Wesley's first published use of it), and also found an earlier use of 'agree to differ'. I assume these changes won't be invalidated as original research, though, because I'm just citing something found in published books. Curiouswiker (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two earlier instances of "agree to disagree" well before Wesley and Whitefield. See https://wjdw.nl/2019/04/12/was-john-wesley-the-first-to-put-the-phrase-agree-to-disagree-in-print/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willemjdewit (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 I revised the article to reflect the information that Whitefield used the expression before Wesley, and that Wesley himself had explicitly associated the expression with Whitefield. I just did a Google Books search to see if additions of more books to the net have revealed still earlier usages. Sure enough they have, and I was congratulating myself on being the first to discover them until I checked the Talk page and saw that in April of 2019 someone beat me to it. Willemjdewit did so and provided a link on the Talk page to the information. Apparently the article itself wasn't revised to reflect that information, though, so I've gone ahead and done so. Whitefield and Wesley may have helped popularize the expression in its usual meaning, but as Willemjdewit observes, there are published usages of the words themselves well before that, by William Wycherley in 1706 and by James Anderton (pen name John Brereley) in 1608. Curiouswiker (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agree to disagree. 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/20081011170130/http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/53/2/ to http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/53/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm entitled to my opinion"[edit]

The reason why Agree to disagree and I'm entitled to my opinion are separate articles is because they are separate topics. Defining the former as the latter just confuses them. There is a connection between the two topics, as is already noted in the "See also" section, but no reasons or references have been offered that would justify mixing the two subjects in the lead section. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article. See also the prior discussion at Talk:I'm entitled to my opinion/Archives/2019 § Fallacy? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]