[ben_w]

> exoplanets are by definition planets outside the solar system. It's like claiming that a brown furple isn't a furple -- the claim is wrong, regardless of what one thinks a furple is.

If only language was so logical.

While I happen to agree that exoplanets are planets, as with my point in the other comment, I aver the stronger claim ("regardless") does not follow in this context.

Stonehenge, after which the concept of a henge is named, does not meet the current archeological definition of a henge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge

Jerusalem artichokes are neither artichokes nor from Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_artichoke

Guinea pigs are not pigs and are not from Guinea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig

The "mincemeat" in a mince pie is, these days, usually vegetarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat

Chinese checkers is German and plays nothing like checkers. Peanuts are not nuts, strawberries are not berries, hamburgers do not generally contain ham, a killer whale is actually a dolphin, etc.

[jibal]

I don't need an off topic point-missing lecture on how language works that could have and might as well have been written by a clanker. The fact remains that exoplanets are by definition a type of planet, regardless of whether Jerusalem artichokes are a type of artichoke -- proper names as adjectives work differently, and the "mincemeat" example is simply bad faith ... actually, the whole pushback here is bad faith argumentation.

And "gas giants are failed stars and shouldn't count as planets" is completely irrelevant -- at best it's a fallacy of denial of the antecedent.

I won't respond further.