I found this old MJD quote relevant:
After reading a lot of articles, I discovered that different people had at least eight different notions
of what 'strongly typed language' meant. Sometimes they weren't even sure themselves; I found some articles
which defined 'strongly typed language' and then classified languages as strongly or weakly typed in explicit accord with some other definition that contradicted the one they had first given.
My conclusion is that 'strongly typed language' doesn't mean anything at all, and that if you hear someone
say that some language is strongly typed, or some other language is weakly typed, you should assume that you don't know what they meant.
Your articles are based on your opinions, especially your opinion of what "strong typing" and "weak typing" mean. Yet these opinions were not supported by citations.
Accordingly, I found these articles somewhat lightweight and lacking in rigor.
Also, writing a series of articles on typing without describing type inference and functional languages (e.g. Haskell) is a serious omission IMHO.
Since I couldn't find any useful references on typing in your articles, I present a few below that I found useful: