I don't doubt that Haskell is a great language, but in my experience, if you have to publicly anounce to people at length why a thing is x, it isn't x.
Not true at all. We live in a world were marketing determines the standards used. The current trend is actually to give programmers less guidance on writing correct, composable code ("Dynamic" scripting languages).
I think that was true 6 or 7 years ago, but we’re heading completely to the other side. Typescript over javascript, rust over c, swift over objective-c, dart adding improved support for static typing, go thinking about generics, etc. I think everybody now go toward compilers or PL enforcing more ( and as soon as possible) rather than give the programmers more dynamic features.
In my humble experience it can be either. Case in point - the adoption of disinfecting of tools and hands before surgery in 189x-s.
That depends on what your definition of “is” is. When something “is” X only if the mainstream understands it without explanation, then you may be right.
Yes, and it is also important to understand what “is not” is not.