Apology accepted however even if the characterization is accurate for other editors it serves no purpose in bringing it up Making disputes personal rarely enhances dialogue Anyway I think you ve concluded basically the same thing I have such a broadening of definition would include many people who really should not be considered philosophers Consider for instance Ayn Rand She wrote on the topics of metaphysics ethics etc but she did so rhetorically and without actually attempting to prove her points using syllogistic logic She contributed nothing to human knowledge both because her reasoning was fallacious and because any of her actually valid conclusions had already been documented by previous philosophers for instance objectivist metaphysics are simply a renamed naturalistic metaphysics I don t mean to group Dawkins with Rand of course as Dawkins is in my opinion a brilliant man who has contributed much to human knowledge But this is my point using such a broadened definition puts Dawkins Rand Kant Mill and Russel in the same category which I think is prima facie an incorrect grouping Now as to your point that philosophers will favor their own well yes but the same should be said for biologists and physicists When we write an article on evolution we value the discoveries of biology and not of religion Philosophy is and basically always has been an academic enterprise starting with the post religious works of the Sophists Plato Aristotle etc as they founded the world s first philosophical academies Since then the practice of philosophy has undergone many manifestations but even among those differences it is generally somewhat easy to tell what is philosophy and what is simply on the subject of philosophy but not actually philosophy For instance the analytical school of philosophy I think should not hesitate to consider continental philosophy something other than philosophy it is just considered to be incorrect being very general here From a Wikipedia standpoint encyclopedias themselves are an academic enterprise and as such when we re considering how to assign WP WEIGHT to a subject we do so by reference to experts in that subject Whether rightly or wrongly the experts on philosophy have yet to recognize Dawkins as a philosopher but as WP editors our job is not to determine whether or not Dawkins is really a philosopher but rather to consider the expert opinion on the matter and give due weight to minority views when appropriate talk