Yes goal posts have been moved, but not by me. Some of those papers may informally use these terms for static types, but it is certainly not to describe charact

Yes goal posts have been moved, but not by me. Some of those papers may informally use these terms for static types, but it is certainly not to describe characteristics of dynamic languages. AFAIK, there is no classification in computer science that describes dynamic languages in this way. This has come from the dynamic language communities. None of those papers demonstrate that it is acceptable to call Python "strongly typed", in fact quite the opposite, as the technology discussed is not available in Python. Well, not yet anyway...