Pseudonymous, if you wanted to discuss ideological influences on collectors that has been fairly thoroughly discussed both on here and in print. It's usually fairly obvious when a writer is looking at something from a certain perspective, and if you don't share that perspective you can ignore, or challenge, their conclusions.

I'm not sure what difference it makes to the actual subjects. I don't think it has helped this discussion to make it about one particular singer, when it might have been better to have been more focused on writers' interpretations of traditional singing. Bringing WP into it has perhaps been a distraction.

However since he has been brought into it, he is particularly prominent on Mudcat because whenever Jim, who is a very prolific poster, wants an example of a traditional singer he usually goes to WP. At the time WP was not the only traditional singer who performed on the folk circuit. He was highly regarded by most with an interest in traditional singing, but I don't think you can attribute that entirely to ideology - he was a fine singer and a confident if modest performer, with a large repertoire. Whilst this is subjective, he certainly appeared to me to be among the best I heard, but I don't think he was "lionised" much more than the others.

All these traditional singers were valued because of the connection they provided to the tradition. For some there may have been an ideological element, but above all it was about the singing.