Well, I suppose I started this discussion for two reasons: to see what would happen and because I have my own point of view.

I have watched what happened with great interest. Thank you all for your thoughts. Now I know the answer!

Actually, as a purist I still think the purest definition is the "wildflower" definition as I stated at the beginning of this thread. As a realist I know we cannot survive if we restrict ourselves to this narrow definition.
Joe, I really like your last paragraph in your posting here. I would say "folk" though, not "traditional folk". You can’t write something new and call it traditional. You CAN write something new which may be folky.
Elsie, I may not see it exactly the way you do but I really value your input. I think you are passionate not grumpy.
To all other contributors, we may not all agree but there have been many good points made here, I think this has become an excellent discussion, far better than I ever envisaged.

My own point of view is that when people hear the words "folk song" an image of what that means will come to mind, each individual having a different image. I would hope that the concept which features largest in that image is that of a traditional folk song (the "wildflower" definition). I believe that if this is the case then folk clubs, festivals (and this forum) will not go far wrong. Although this forum does stray sometimes it seems to me to be reasonably well focussed on this concept.

The problem is, I have been to folk clubs and festivals where it seems to me that the organisers ARE losing sight of this concept. In my small way I am trying to shift the focus back towards traditional folk songs. I am not trying to exclude anything. We can’t. We must allow for creativity. But when I go to a folk club or festival and not hear ANY traditional folk songs I think someone is losing the plot.

Whatever your favourite definition may be PLEASE keep the "wildflower" definition in the back of your mind.

Cheers,
Alan