[A.J.Armitage]

In a traditional Protestant way?

Not even close.

The original source, as you can see here, was the first edition of the work you cited. And, as you can also see at the link, they did not use the "traditional Protestant way" (whatever that is), or any way you'd use in ordinary conversation. The second edition obvious uses the same definition (unless you've got evidence that 19 denominations, in the ordinary sense of the term, suddenly jumped to 30,000).

This is actually a side issue. By your answer, you proved that if you read it at all, you saw the number and ignored the context, trusting your own guesswork for the rest.

[polemikos]

The second edition obvious uses the same definition (unless you've got evidence that 19 denominations, in the ordinary sense of the term, suddenly jumped to 30,000).

Now who's jumping to conclusions without having read the source material? ;-)

This is actually a side issue.

Agreed. It is about my tagline above, afterall.

they did not use . . . [a definition] you'd use in ordinary conversation

Ulp. Putting words in my mouth?

By your answer, you proved that if you read it at all, you saw the number and ignored the context, trusting your own guesswork for the rest.

There's a leap!

The "analysis" you linked contains one or more critical flaws. A key one to me is the nature of the centralized theology of Catholicism versus the individual theology of Protestantism. The methodolgy employed by Barrett and Johnson certainly makes more sense in examining Protestantism rather than Catholicism.

So even if we were to arbitrarily throw out 90% of the Protestant denominations as "without distinction", that still leaves 3,000 denominations. (3,001 per Barnacle.) And my point about only one being possibly valid still stands, regardless of the final count, no?