Greg, thanks for the reply on my talk page. In it, you said, "You are going to force me to dig up references for a fact which upon expression becomes fairly obvious to anyone. This is the math bias I am talking about." On the first part of the statement, it's not that I necessarily don't agree with your token/type bit. More importantly, I find that it is not the proper place for it, any more than it would be at the article about apples. My point was that if even an encyclopedia of philosophy doesn't make the token/type distinction for every term where it could, then why would a general use encyclopedia? Regarding "math bias", I can only say that I consider logic to be part of mathematics. I would argue that most if not all logicians agree. Nevertheless, if some bit of content is important to the article, it should be in. I just don't think that your bit is in this particular case; and if there are no sources that support your opinion, then we should favor simplicity, and leave it out. Thanks.