Didn't know I had any "insistence" rights, Ian -- oh, if only. But I don't see why I should be less entitled to put my opinions than anyone else. If they are not to your taste, I fall back yet again on Merchant Of Venice, IV i 65: "I am not bound to please thee with my answers".

Precise definitions are going to be 'narrow', for that matter. Over-broad definitions will clearly be less precise than narrow ones: think about it.

"Perhaps Michael, traditional songs are called folk too because someone said so?" -- They are called Folk because W J Thoms said so, in 1846. Who denies it? & what of it, then?

≈M≈

Talking of Gyles Brandreth, BTW; he once interviewed me on Radio Cambridge when I had written something in contradiction to a view he had expressed. Most charming man; made a point of keeping off the topic at issue between us and just giving me a most agreeable and affable time. But, for all his charm, I am not sure I would regard him as a final arbiter as to what arguments may be permissible in any specific instance; certainly not on the basis of that nice linguistic conceit you cite; which is not however, actually, when analysed, all that meaningful.