If only they had gone for a non-exclusive "description" rather than a rigid "definition" back in 1954, we would have had no problem.

If they had chosen a different word to "define", other then "folk", say "George"; but then the Georges of this world would be complaining that their name has been usurped. And rightly so.

When a word exists for decades already, if not centuries, why do you feel the need to "define" it? I cannot help feeling that intellectual arrogance is involved.