This is the stupidest addition I've ever seen.
People say Pluto is "not a planet" because in 2006, 5% of the International Astronomical Union, a grand total of 424 people, voted to give "planet" a formal astronomical definition. Why did they do this? As far as anyone can tell, the only apparent reason for why they needed to come up with such a conservative definition of "planet" is because at that time, dozens of new, planet-sized objects (such as Eris) that were round and orbited the Sun were being discovered to exist beyond Neptune. This made it challenging to justify labeling Pluto as the "ninth planet" when there were so many satellites that were similar to Pluto that were arbitrarily called "not-planets". So the astronomers that were able to attend the vote (again, 424 out of a possible 9000 people) decided on the final definition that some astronomers use today.
The above addition acts as if the definition of "planet" is something objective that science has "discovered"; like dinosaurs having feathers. But obviously that's ridiculous. It's an argument over (ultimately inconsequential) terminology, and furthermore, the IAU definition has its fair share of criticisms by other astronomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Ongoing_controversies
I want to especially highlight this paragraph: "Many astronomers, claiming that the definition of planet was of little scientific importance, preferred to recognise Pluto's historical identity as a planet by 'grandfathering" it into the planet list." Basically, why do we need to restrict the definition of "planet" to 8 bodies in the first place? Is it because schoolchildren need to learn them, and so you need a short list? Why is that something schoolchildren need to learn? Isn't it simpler to just say "the number of planets is undetermined, but here are the 9 most famous/important ones" for your memory"?
yousharknotpass
izzy806
germansingergirl
tangentwithtanner
gummygunk
