Only because for the most part the sources I gave don't recognize weak atheism at all.
Webster's definition of Atheism:
1. archaic : ungodliness,
wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Those are all definitions of strong atheism.
"Most inclusively". Yes, the author of the Wikipedia article felt it necessary to preface that definition with a qualifier that by itself denotes special circumstance, rather than common practice.
So all of the other definitions, the four offered by the dictionaries (I'm not counting the archaic for obvious reasons) and the other two given by Wiki are incorrect?
Why should we accept the minority definition as correct and reject or ignore the other six?
Which would imply that strong atheism is the default interpretation of the word.
We were discussing the commonality of referring to babies as "Atheists", not the longevity of the practice.
Longevity doesn't say anything about the commonality or legitimacy of an idea or the acceptance thereof, it just tells us it's been around for a while.