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 youve 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 dont 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 postreligious works of the SophistsPlatoAristotleetc as they founded the worlds 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 were considering how to assign WPWEIGHT 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 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
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 youve 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 dont 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 postreligious works of the SophistsPlatoAristotleetc as they founded the worlds 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 were considering how to assign WPWEIGHT 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 

