>nor any specific definition widely agreed upon by any meaningful non-partisan class of speakers (e.g. "working programmers" or "published academic type theorists"
How are "academic type theorists" partisan exactly? That sounds a lot like saying "I haven't seen a definition of medicine that is widely agreed upon by both biologists and homeopaths". Of course not, but those are not equal opposite sides. One side is correct, and the other is not.
"Working programmers" and "published academic type theorists" are examples of meaningful-to-me hopefully-non-partisan classes of speakers. I can't manage to parse what I wrote any other way, I don't know what you read.
In this context, advocates of a particular programming language, or particular paradigm, are what I had in mind by "partisan", in that I believe them to be likely to have relatively-agreed-upon definitions of "strong" (within their language community), and I also believe those definitions to be amusingly self-congratulatory.
Also, btw, while I think that homeopathy as a "medical discipline" is contemptible, it's pretty stupid to say "biologists are correct about the meaning of this word, and homeopaths are not". The way that words work is that they mean what people use them to mean. This, in fact, is my point about the phrases "strong typing" and "weak typing"; in my experience and my literature surveys, these phrases are NOT used consistently, and thus i.m.o. if you wish for your audience to hear the thing you intend to mean, you're better off avoiding those phrases.
As a supposed Haskell advocate you are really doing a very good job of being thoroughly unpleasant. Knock it off. It reflects very badly on the Haskell community.
How are "academic type theorists" partisan exactly? That sounds a lot like saying "I haven't seen a definition of medicine that is widely agreed upon by both biologists and homeopaths". Of course not, but those are not equal opposite sides. One side is correct, and the other is not.