"

To claim that what isn't relevant? I agree with the suggestion of including some criticism of the term. As I have said repeatedly, the passage from Gardner does not criticize the term ""non-Aristotelian logic"". It addresses a different use of the word ""non-Aristotelian"". This by itself seems like sufficient reason to remove it. Furthermore, its current use in the article blurs the line between the two senses of ""null-A"". Far from educating readers, it would confuse them unnecessarily. Even if you want to address Korzybski's word choice in the article, adding this passage with no explanation seems to me like a terrible way to do it.  "