That's a very literalist view of their conclusions if I may say so SOP. If their opinion on the exact definition of folk was an academic one without any repercussion in performing contexts, I'd agree it would be simply a point of view. As it is there's ample evidence they valourise the 54 definition at the expense of other musical practices. Neither do I believe they all share a similar outlook on the validity of non-traditional music when performed in folk clubs.

The volume and ferocity of engagement does not derive from an emphasis in wording.