And this one contradicts both cies and me, but it's in no way authoritative of anything.
Here are a few alternatives (equally unauthoritative, but demonstrating my use of the term):
"Strongly typed is a concept used to refer to a programming language that enforces strict restrictions on intermixing of values with differing data types. When such restrictions are violated and error (exception) occurs." ... "Examples of strongly typed languages in existence include Java, Ruby, Smalltalk and Python. In the case of Java, typing errors are detected during compilation Other programming languages, like Ruby, detect typing errors during the runtime." [1]
...
"Dynamically typed languages (where type checking happens at run time) can also be strongly typed. Note that in dynamically typed languages, values have types, not variables.
A weakly typed language has looser typing rules and may produce unpredictable or even erroneous results or may perform implicit type conversion at runtime." [2]
...
"A strongly-typed language is one in which variables are bound to specific data types, and will result in type errors if types do not match up as expected in the expression — regardless of when type checking occurs." [3]
This last one gives a clear delineation which mostly matches how I use it (e.g. C and PHP described as weakly typed - C allows you to override types and PHP does all kinds of nasty implicit conversions; conversely while specific Ruby API's may do conversions, the type system does not and do not allow implicit conversions, and do not allow you to coerce your way past the type system)
You can find all kinds of other variants, so sure, it's not a term that has a definition that everyone agrees about. Your linked article has a point that it's a term one need to define.
I however stand by my assessment that the definitions in most common use fits Ruby.
"Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation" 2007, page 263-4
https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-0...