`     Greetings, I'm ask123. Just read the article  very confusing and stylistically poor I thought! But, after reading this thread, I see that there is heated debate going on here, so I'm not surprised! Here's how I see it:  There are two basic issues at hand here. The first is of content and the other is of style. So far as content is concerned, there is clearly an ongoing debate as to the thoroughness/inclusiveness of the ``definition`` (if you can call this a ``definition``) of philosophy. Obviously, there is not much agreement here. The only way to come to an end point is in list fashion (regrettably). We must ask ourselves, what is and isn't philosophy. Regarding the intellectual discipline of philosophy, what is and isn't included in this arena of study? That leads us to one of three places:  (1) If one or two sentences can describe all of the items on this list, then we are done. Put those sentences in. However, I do not think that this will be the case. If, indeed, that cannot be done because the aforesaid list is unruly and large, then (2) a dance-around-the-issue description (as has been suggested above) may be in order  in other words, a description that offers boundaries for the outter-limits of philosophical study but does not claim to be the one-by-one itemizer or the arbiter of inclusion. But if (3) the list of what is and isn't philosophy can be grouped into a reasonably small number of large subsections (as has been attempted in the current article), then they can be listed and expounded upon. But, surely, unless the four listed subsections of philosophy (that are in the article as it stands now) are all-inclusive  comprise the entirety of philosophy or nearly so  they should not begin this article. Wouldn't that be a silly way to introduce this disipline? If philosophy is not going to be truly defined, as is the case with the article as it stands now, then why begin the article with a sentence that hints at a definition? And why list some subsections of philosophy but not all of them? This seems arbitrary. And, most importantly, is there anyone here who thinks that all or most of philosophy can be grouped into ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and logic? There are surely more groupings that can be added to that list. So we must ask how many more groupings can be added? If the answer is too many to name, then we must take a step back and defer to #2  list boundaries of the discipline of philosophical study/inquiry. But, if they can be listed/grouped, then we should do so. This is, of course, #3: a concise listing of the major categories of philosophy, groups that are all-inclusive or nearly so.  Personally, and considering the aforesaid, I think Alfakim's rewriting of the introduction has been the strongest  content-wise  of the alterations that have been suggested. It combines two of the above-mentioned approches and hints that an expansion on his 2-3 sentence intro in to follow, creating a complete introductory paragraph(s) (following which would be the rest of the article that would fully expound upon the topic). Also, Alfakim's reworking is stylistically strong: it's clear and eloquent. It would be hard for anyone to make a case  based on a set of shared values of lucid, eloquent writing (which, believe it or not, can be honed in upon)  that the current introductory paragraphs are as stylistically strong as Alfakim's rewrite. In fact, the current wording has even been confusing for the editors of this article themselves (see the entire above back-and-forth on this topic)! So, at the very least, even if we are not to change any of the content provided, someone needs to rewrite this in a way that is eloquent and clear! The current intro is rough-hewn and coarse where it needs to be smooth and undulating. Articles need to be pleasing to the ear as well as the mind. You may think this is somewhat subjective (it is!) but we also share a set of values of lucid, eloquent wording. We might argue the details, but there are stylistically strong broad strokes that should be implemented here.  Two final thoughts: first, there has been some mention as to what is and isn't good for Wikipedia. The only things that are good for Wikipedia are encyclopedic entries that are factual, lucid, eloquent and created through consensus/majority-seeking discussion. If there is consensus but the article is not factual, then the article is not right for Wikipedia. Similarly, if the article is factual, but not created by consensus/majority, then the Wikipedia process has been averted (and many people will feel slighted and thereby probably not give the edit enough of a chance to realize that it is indeed factual!). So, since we are discussing this topic in line with the process of Wiki, all we must do is try to be factual, encyclopedic, etc. (which everyone has, I think). Al