I happen to believe that strong writing and speaking skills are a non-negotiable requirement for any intellectual and philosophers in particular. While I obviously disclaim that as a personal opinion, I don't see it as particularly controversial because how valuable are your ideas if you can't communicate them properly and to as wide an audience as applicable? The applicability scope does matter -- a publication on tardigrade reproductive behavior understandably has a much narrower audience than a philosophical treatise on ethics, which their language should reflect (hint: it's more okay for the former to be arcanely worded as its target audience is more controlled).
So when a philosopher who is speculating on matters that affect pretty much every human walking the planet has downright awful writing skills, let's mention Hegel as one of the not so few examples, why do you cut this person slack? Why, if they are so brilliant, do they need an interpretor (e.g. Kojeve) to translate their ideas to the general audience? If they are so brilliant to dispense ethical imperatives that apply to wide audiences, shouldn't they be held in high expectations to themselves make their ideas easily digestible to those audiences?
What prompted me ask this rather broad question is that I notice (even on this forum) a level of disdain for any thinker who does offer philosophical insight but is not a formal philosopher and writes in clear, understandable manner. Famously Foucault said that
In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won't think it's deep--they won't think you're a profound thinker."
A knee jerk response from a nonexpert armchair consumer of philosophy is that it's a defense mechanism from the academic ivory tower to protect their status in the community as the select few who can interpret something that in better conditions shouldn't require much interpretation. But I am hoping there is a better explanation that doesn't come off as some anti-intellectual elitism paranoia and in favor of this hierarchy. In short, my question is, what intellectual justification exists to forgive (good?) philosophers for terrible writing skills? Or in other words, convince me that writing skills do not correlate with general intellectual value. I'm very open to change my mind.