As I describe in post #2: A statement may be described as objective if and only if it is an accepted definition or something that is trivially obvious to all and as gezusfreke says, accepted at all times regardless of circumstances and culture.
“Iron is attracted by a magnet.” is an objective statement by triviality.
“A dog is a mammal.” is an objective statement by virtue of it being an accepted definition.
I would disagree that a statement "may be described as objective if and only if it is an accepted definition or something that is trivially obvious to all."
Per wikipedia: "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy
The very nature of "accepted definition" and "trivially obvious to all" speak to at the very least biases and interpretations.
An objective truth is a truth that is true regardless of whether it is accepted or obvious to all. An example would be the discovery of a planet. The objective truth is that the planet was a planet before it was discovered. It's being accepted as a planet did not suddenly make it a true planet. When everyone was monumentally oblivious to its existence, it was still a true planet.
I did not define it by saying it had to be "accepted at all times," in fact, I think my definition is the opposite of that.
From my first post in this thread:
"Let's first define objective.
When something is objective, my or your feelings, presuppositions, and opinions do not affect it. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. It is objectively true, no matter what you wish it to be. It is not relative and subject to change based on other factors. If it is 106 degrees or 32 degrees outside, 2+2=4. If we are in Germany, Kosovo, Ruwanda, Chile, or the Antarctica, 2+2=4. No matter if you are male, female, straight, gay, 2 years old or 100 years old, 2+2=4."
Was that an honest mistake on your part? I hope so.