I understand the point you are making and I think it is more a matter of semantics rather a difference of opinion. The term "fertilizer" is typically used to refer to an outside source of plant nutrient requirements - other than those found naturally occurring in the soil - and usually one which offers a ready supply of one of the big 3. As I understand your interpretation, peat, while it has virtually no remaining nitrogen content, would qualify as a fertilizer because it certainly makes the environment more hospitable to those organisms which generate nitrogen as a byproduct of their existence and thus provide this necessary plant nutrient.
One can reasonably argue that all organic soil amendments can be looked at in this fashion - all offer some, typically very limited nutrient value. Their true value is in their ability to improve soil fertility and tilth by providing organic matter and thus hosting increased populations of soil organisms, increasing pore space and improving drainage. While peat may have no significant nutrient value - less than 1% nitrogen, no phosphorus and minimal potassium - the same can be said of composted hog, cow, poultry or steer manure. Christopher Starbuck was right on in his statement that peat is equally as good as steer manure for soil enrichment, but neither one does much in the way of providing supplemental nutrients, specially the nitrogen which most turf soils lack. Personally, I'd find peat less efficient than composted manure as an organic lawn topdressing because of its difficulty in rewetting once it has dried out, the slowness with which it further decomposes and its tendency to decrease soil pH, something which further defeats the purpose of growing a healthy lawn.
Thank you. pam - gardengal