Talk:Quote... Unquote

Wrongly named?
Isn't it Quote... Unquote? --Oldak Quill 00:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Most boring programme on Radio 4
Surely this article should give some mention of the fact that Quote... Unquote is the least funny, most boring, smuggest waste of time on all of Radio 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.80.9 (talk)


 * It's certainly boring, unfunny and smug but most boring? Surely that honour must go to File On 4.

I think the most important thing anyone could say about quote unquote is that is is crushingly, unremittingly dire. In fact, it's a national disgrace. Oz naughten 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on now, Oz. It's far far worse than THAT. I believe the SAS use tapes of Quote ... Unquote as part of their torture-resistance training. (Though Mrs Trellis of North Wales and Eric Pode of Croydon are said to be fans.) -- Picapica 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case, I believe the references to it being boring and pointless on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue deserve a mention.

Well, having defended Quote...unquote, I do agree with the above comment about the most boring programme on Radio Four being File on Four. However, the main reason for communicating tonight (March 22) is to say that there should be some indication as to how the programme got its title. Isn't it from the river users, who also inspired the name of Mark Twain? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Defending Quote ... Unquote
I shall respond to the above comments by saying, first of all, that I rather like "Quote..Unquote". However, I do not think it necessary for people to leave such comments here, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a springboard for people to air their personal views. I do have views on Radio Four programmes, but I thought that the purpose of a "Discussion" of an article on a radio programme was meant to be to help the article to maintain accuracy and comprehensiveness. ACEOREVIVED 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But my comment was addressed to the question of comprehensiveness, as raised by the anonymous editor at 82.47.80.9, even if -- like you, Aceo -- I introduced it with an opinion... Picapica (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinions versus information
Well, if we are going to litter this page with personal opinions about Radio 4 comedies, I could say awful I find most of today's sitcoms, such as "Double Science" or "Fags, Mags and Bags", and say that these are what I would describe as - to use an expression above - examples of a "national disgrace", and go on to say that I, for one, am much more taken with Radio 4 comedy if it is a panel game (such as Quote...Unquote) than a sitcom (there have been a few, and it is a few, good sitcoms at 6: 30 on Radio 4, such as Linda Smith's "A Brief History of Time-Wasting"). However, this would not be information to add to comprehensiveness of this page, as this would only be my opinion about Radio 4 comedies, and to incorporate it into the article would violate the Wikipedia NPOV policy. If there is one comedy on Radio 4 which could be described as a "national disgrace", it is Safety Catch, because the morality of making a comedy about its subject-matter has been voiced on the Radio 4 programme "Feedback". Now, whereas to say what I think about Radio 4 comedies would only be my opinion, to echo what has been said about Radio 4 comedies on Feedback: Radio Series would be informative. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)