I'm not sure the article is implying anything about Alan. Hard to tell, there seems to be something missing in the piece. But one thing the article does argue

I'm not sure the article is implying anything about Alan. Hard to tell, there seems to be something missing in the piece. But one thing the article does argue about is what can and cannot be called OOP. It seems completely reasonable to me to refer to Java, Python and similar languages as OOP languages. That is the current widely accepted meaning of the term (even though these languages might be more like Simula than Smalltalk). It also seems reasonable to say that Kay's original ideas around OOP and their evolution and refinement (not sure if we can call it a definition) overlapped with these, but were on a different trajectory. One that perhaps has not been explored extensively.