This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
A governmental example is from the USNRC Final Safety Culture Policy Statement, which defines "nuclear safety culture" as: “Nuclear safety culture is the core values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people and the environment.” By this definition there can never be bad, poor, weak, or otherwise problematic nuclear safety culture[improper synthesis?]. It is, by definition, always good[improper synthesis?].
Such a synthesis is, by my estimation, invalid, and should be sourced. The statement is performatory and defines what is to be regarded as nuclear safety culture (proper) as in opposition to bad nuclear safety culture or no nuclear safety culture. The reader and syntheziser should either find a source for such an odd and malicious reinterpretation of the citation, or keep this kind of interpretation to himself (herself?). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed, the passage was unsourced and has been marked as synthesis for 4 years.--George100 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)