I had the same reaction. I think it stems from choosing an extremely strict set of characteristics. If you take the infamous Alan Kay quote [1], then e.g. Ruby fits in that category. But with the characteristics as-is, the category of OO languages as opposed to language that allow OO programming, is near empty and it becomes easier to "get away with" talking about the purity of Self rather than recognising that Smalltalk has a lot of spiritual descendants, while Self is the basis for a much smaller branch (Javascript being by far the most prominent spiritual descendant, but even JS is ruled out by the characteristics given).
Ending up with Javascript and especially Ruby as ALGOL derived makes no sense to me. Where more limited OO languages have imported OO aspects, JS and Ruby have wrapped ALGOL syntax and a few concepts around semantics that are much closer to Self and Smalltalk respectively.
[1] "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme LateBinding of all things".
Ending up with Javascript and especially Ruby as ALGOL derived makes no sense to me. Where more limited OO languages have imported OO aspects, JS and Ruby have wrapped ALGOL syntax and a few concepts around semantics that are much closer to Self and Smalltalk respectively.
[1] "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme LateBinding of all things".