alt Hacker NewsHere's a Stack Overflow question about it from 15 years ago: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2025353/is-python-a-weak...
It was an old discussion before then, even. It has nothing to do with advocacy and it's certainly not recent. It's about accuracy so that people stop hearing and then repeating the same incorrect ideas. There's no common definition of types by which Python is untyped, as though it doesn't have types at all when in fact every Python object has a type.
> There's no common definition of types by which Python is untyped
You mean besides the one used by every programming languages researcher and hobbyist? Sure, you can define "common" to exclude them, but I would give at least some credence to the definitions put forward by the teams of people who invent type theory.
As I've said here and elsewhere, I have no problem with people casually using "dynamically typed" as a term—I do so as well. But there's no cause to correct someone for using the more correct terminology.
If hearing it makes you feel defensive of python, that implies that you perceive "untyped" as a pejorative that needs defending against. In that case, your efforts would be better spent correcting the evolving consensus that (statically) typed is better than they would be spent trying to shout people down for using the academic definitions of typed and untyped.