"in the terms accepted by us......"
It depends who you mean by us, surely Steve - I've probably been around the scene as long as you and I neither accept you as a traditional singer, nor do I claim the title for myself - it simply doesn't fit in with anything I have ever understood about the term.
MacColl used to come in for no end of abuse for claiming his parents to be traditional singers (I happen to believe from discussions with their contemporaries in Salford that they both sang traditional songs).
So it seems that say twenty years ago you wouldn't have been considered a traditional singer and would have been considered a bit of a nutter had you gone round describing yourself as one. When and how did you decide you were one and why is it important to you?
"That shouldn't really cause many problems."
As somebody who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the tradition, how it worked, what its function was... etc it does cause problems; it muddies the water. It really isn't like describing yourself as 'The Great Marvello' - it carries a great number of issues along with it, none of which you seem to possess if your only claim to the title is that you've been a folkie for as long as I have.
I'm sure you realise that research require a bit more precision than that if it is going to achieve anything?
For me, you and I will never be anything more than singers of traditional songs, just as your traditional jazz singer will never be anything more than a singer of traditional jazz - unless he or she is part of the long process that brought us our traditional jazz or folk songs.
Jim Carroll