"[Alan Stern] scoffed at Pluto's new classification, "dwarf planet" -- "How can an adjective in front of a noun not describe the noun?" Stern asked. "There are dwarf stars but they're still considered stars..."
... "The paper that [Kirby Runyon will present this week isn't a formal proposal, like the one that was devised at the IAU. He's not putting his definition up to a vote, or even suggesting that it should replace the IAUs. If he did, it's unlikely that the IAU would adopt it. [Carolyn] Porco, who is one of the lead scientists for NASA's Cassini mission to Saturn, pointed out that she is a planetary scientist and has no problem with the IAU's orbital dynamics-based definition. She also noted that astronomers already have a perfectly serviceable term for the kind of body Stern and Runyon are trying to describe: "world." In her view, the only scientists who want to make those places planets are people who study Pluto."
Keith's note: What is Stern's point? he says "There are dwarf stars but they're still considered stars". OK, by his logic a "dwarf planet" is therefore still considered a "planet". Hooray: Pluto is a planet. So why does Stern continue to moan and groan about whether or not Pluto is a planet? Stern and his small cadre of Pluto loyalists complain incessantly about the 2006 IAU vote to reclassify Pluto - yet in the ensuing decade no one has seen fit to try and formally submit a better definition to the IAU and have a discussion that involves the entire space science community. They'd rather just complain, it would seem, since that attracts more attention - to Pluto.