You and the author appear to be using different definitions. I find it troubling that, after all this time, there is still no definition that doesn't use words like "thing".
I like the Rees OO ontology[1]. The set notation doesn't lend itself to easy reading, but it lets you break out the features of an object system in a more precise way.
I have seen that before and I don't consider it particularly useful. #5 is self-referential and useless. Only one or two (#9 and maybe #7) of those help distinguish OOP style from anything else, and #9 is not very compelling.
When I see OO code, I mostly think about the bundling of code with the data it operates on, but that is basically a module. So maybe it should be called module-oriented programming?
