That looks like a random list of papers. Which one are you claiming defines or even discusses "strong" or "weak" typing? AFAIK those terms have no real definition in type theory.
You said academics don't use the terms - you were given examples that do so.
None of them need to define it - if you're interested, you can do that research.
Those terms don't have definitions in type theory and that's ok. Systems defined in the type theory deal with very explicit, theoretical analysis that usually maps well only to static-strong implementations.
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...
No. It is terminology used by the dynamic language communities, not by academics.