Sijtsma and Pfadt (2021) published a thought-provoking article on coefficient alpha. I make the following arguments against their work. 1) Kuder and Richardson (1937) deserve more credit for coefficient alpha than Cronbach (1951). 2) We should distinguish between the definition of reliability and its meaning. 3) We should be wary of overfitting in the use of FA reliability. 4) Our primary concern is to obtain accurate reliability estimates rather than conservative estimates. 5) Several reliability estimators, such as ${\lambda }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\lambda _{2}$$\end{document}, ${\mu }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\mu _{2}$$\end{document}, congeneric reliability and the Gilmer-Feldt coefficient are more accurate than coefficient alpha. 6) The name omega should not be used to refer to a specific reliability estimator.