Poor Pluto and Public perturbed by Picky Planet Portrayal

Great point. Both sides have good cases, but the 'clear the neighborhood' group has just not convinced me of the purpose or scientific delineation. What are the limits? How round is round? What about the asteroid population? Trojans? What is the scientific basis for your argument? Why have a different definition for planets around other stars and a 'special' definition for our own? Not to mention, what a sad thing to let a small subset of the field exclusively vote on such an important decision without broader input - is there some reason that the vote HAD to be taken this year at that specific conference? Sounds like some folks just wanted publicity to me...

...What if, though, the IAU had taken a different approach? Perhaps astronomers could have decided not to make a formal definition of the term '“planet', finding it to be too general and vague. Instead, the IAU could have adopted specific definitions for classes of planets, based on their size (using the hydrostatic equilibrium criterion, for example) and other key characteristics. One might imagine three broad classes of planets: '“gas giant planets'” for gaseous worlds like Jupiter, 'terrestrial planets'” for rocky worlds like the Earth, and 'ice planets' for worlds like Pluto....