Talk:Sexed up

From VfD
Comment : Neutral. As the original author I agree that it wasn't the most informative first entry I could've made to this place. The example was meant to be sexed up as a self reference, however I realised I should've expilicitly stated this and have tried to ammend it appropriately. Bad newbieness, sorry. easilyremembered 23:47 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary. Regardless of how "useful" the article is, it doesn't belong here. --Badharlick 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Has a vfd tag, but was not listed here until now.) The current content sucks, but it is a common term, and could become a useful article--how/when/where it originated would be interesting; also a reference to the phrase "sex sells".  If nothing else, it could redirect to Hyperbole, with appropriate reference added to that article. Niteowlneils 23:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with above suggestions.
 * It was a key phrase in the Hutton Inquiry which is why the content is why it is. Please add/amend. Secretlondon 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neutral. IMO this is not a particularly useful contribution and never likely to be, but nor is there any persuasive case for deletion. Human knowledge? Borderline. A poor choice of article name at best. The material could perhaps be NPOVed and moved to an article on journalistic bias or similar by someone interested in the topic, with a redirect. Andrewa 23:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This article definitely needs changing. It is becoming sexed up itself!
 * I've removed the POV content, and expanded it. Could still use some work, but is an example of what it could become. Niteowlneils 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs a bit more. Dysprosia 04:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common term. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary. Common term but words, phrases and their use flow better in Wiktionary than they can here. Rossami 14:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary. Encyclopedia is about facts, not about words however idiomatic or neologismic they could be. Do you really want all these "beefed up", "screwed up", "dressed up" and hundreds of other ups here? Mikkalai 18:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would vote to delete all the ones you cite.  However, none of them have been used as commonly or specifically by the news media for such a controversial, and specific news item. Niteowlneils 18:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This illustrates the danger
....................................... of using undefined terms. The contributor says make "more attractive" the dictionary says " make it seem more significant, exciting or interesting than it originally was" : something quite different. As an aging brit, I regard it as equivalent to " tarting up " and many people might think of "fuck up" (when used to mean "spoil" ). Exaggerate seems pretty close to Andrew Gilligan's probable intention. MORAL :-   BE EXPLICIT and do not try to show off or to be too clever.

77.97.161.230 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)mikeL

Are you folks not missing something here? For there seems a danger of over-debating the words, while totally missing the wider context. Clearly, by itself, the term Sexed-up is of little importance. And yet, set against a government attempts to make the case for war seem more significant, exciting or interesting - the term Sexed-up seems fitting. So why delete? 92.16.147.111 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.
the allegation was not made by the BBC. It was made by Andrew Gilligan. It was broadcast by the BBC something quite different although its critics seem to like pretending otherwise. mikeL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.234.172 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, just what was Andrew Gilligan's crime? The impression given is that he made mis-leading allegations. And yet, if a government’s attempts to make the case for war more significant, interesting, exciting - has it not Sexed-up the evidence? 92.16.147.111 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)