volcanopele seems to be referring to the "for" and "against" text that accompanies the resolutions. Here it is from that pdf. The accompanying cartoon is the best part.
250 words for
Compromise. Achieving a planet definition has been all
about compromise. There are two equally valid descriptions
of what should be the principal criterion for defining a
planet. One is dynamical, an object that has “cleared out
its zone.” The other is based on the physical nature of the
body itself. The pendulum of argument has swung both
ways during the General Assembly discussions. But now
it has swung too far.
Resolution 5B is all about finding the middle ground.
Using qualifiers gives equal status to both points of
view and leaves open the possibility to define other
types of planets in our Universe. Resolution 5B restores
the “global and cultural points of view” that the Planet
Definition Committee had responsibility to achieve. The
public recognizes Mars, for example, as a “planet” not
because it has cleared out its zone, but because it is a
To illustrate why Resolution 5B is cultural, and not silly
semantics, consider how you must answer two questions:
How many planets are there? Is Pluto a planet? A vote
in favor of 5B yields: “There are 8 classical planets and
many dwarf planets yet to be discovered” and “Pluto is a
planet, but in the dwarf planet category.” These answers
highlight and communicate the tremendous revolution
of new discoveries in our outer Solar System. Further, it
saves enormous public backlash by still being able to say
the words “Pluto is a planet, but”. Do not underestimate
the global cultural importance of these first four words.
The word “planet” deserves to be shared equally.
250 words against
Resolution 5B represents a small but significant change to
The key issue is the definition of “planet”. Resolution 5A is
close to the version agreed by consensus on Tuesday evening
where it was made clear that three distinct categories of
objects orbiting the Sun were being defined: planets, dwarf planets,
and small bodies. The logical implications from the
rules of grammar cannot be ignored. By using the name
“planet” with two different adjectives “classical” and “dwarf”
a larger category of planets is implied. This contradicts
the first paragraph of both Resolutions 5A and 5B and
transforms three distinct categories into two (planets and
small bodies) and two sub-groups of planets.
To the question “is Pluto a planet?” the two resolutions
give different solutions – “Yes” for 5B and “No” for 5A. To
the question “How many planets are there?” Resolution 5A
gives 8, Resolution 5B currently gives 12 and soon at least
The total number of planets may not matter to scientists,
it is critical for education and the dissemination of science.
For scientists, it is relevant that dynamical and cosmogonical
criteria, which are now the source for the definition of
planets, would in Resolution 5B be relegated to a secondary
role. In Resolution 5A the arguments from geophysics and
from dynamical astronomy are given equal weight. Such a
balanced solution had received very strong support in the
meeting of Division III (Planetary Systems Science) and the
Planet Definition Information Meeting.
Resolution 5B is misleading and should be rejected.Click to view attachment