Since Pharo wants to position itself as a modern, industrial programming language, it makes sense that the project would want to distance itself from that reputation.
This, precisely. Pharo is a fork of Squeak Smalltalk, and Squeak Smalltalk is a direct descendant of Smalltalk-80.
(And a common thread in Smalltalk implementations and versions from Smalltalk-72 to Squeak is the illustrious Dan Ingalls.)
Still, Smalltalk has nothing on Lisp or BASIC in terms of dialects/variants/versions. ;-)
I, on the other hand, consider Self and Slate to be good examples of Smalltalk.
Beyond any technical discussions there is the marketing issue. Smalltalk's reputation took a major hit in the 1990s with the rise of Java (from the "language of the future that doesn't run on the computers you have, yet" it became "a failed language of the past") and association with the name can hurt a project in some cases.
Eclipse grew out from Visual Age series.
Or that Sun repurposed Strongtalk for Hotspot.
Err ... oops ... ;-)
Yes, I understand that Pharo may well eventually change the some semantics of the underlying language, or at least reserves the right to do so. Fine, call it "not smalltalk" when that happens (if ever).
Until then, call pharo what it is. An interesting, in some ways innovative, FORK OF SQUEAK SMALLTALK.
Its a squeak fork, in the same way that cuis smalltalk is a squeak fork. Both pharo and cuis have evolved in different directions, as per their original directives.
And you know what? Thats fine. Great, in fact. Each can (and does) learn from the other.
And they're both STILL smalltalk. And thats also fine!