What to think of "subject(ive)" and "object(ive)"?

^ Neither the word "opinion" nor the word "judgement" are used in this IEP article, let alone the combination "objective judgement/opinion" because it would be contrary to what they're explaining. Objective opinions or judgements do not exist - it is in essence impossible.

Edit: I think I spelled "judgement" when searching for it, so it returned no results since in the article it is spelled "judgment", and it is quite extensively used. This doesn't change my point, though.

Kees already alludes to this: The major problem with the concept of objectivity is that to the extent that it refers to anything independent of (individual) mind and perception, mind and perception can never secure objectivity, because it is out of their reach. And if individual minds can't access it, neither can society.

Philosophers and others have discussed objectivity a lot and have come up with ideas about objectivity that refer to something that mind and language can grasp more easily. All these are controversial though, none is without problems. Here are a few: You could call "objective" statements/facts/truths that can be arrived at on the basis of "logical necessities"/formalised logical rules such as mathematical truths (these usually are consequences of premises that themselves can be questioned). You could generally refer to "playing by the rules" within a formal system as "objectively correct", which would then be relative to the rules of course (note that in chess it is far more easy to see whether rules are violated than in football/soccer as chess itself is formalised). The positivists would acknowledge observables, i.e., statements that can be clearly checked and verified or falsified on the basis of observations; those verified would be the objective ones. The law system and other decision making institutions would have rules that are meant to secure impartiality; although you can ultimately not verify impartiality, often you can identify partiality and try to explicitly avoid it. There are also ideas that state that consensus or "consensus among experts" are a key ingredient of objectivity, but these accounts will usually have to deal with the uncomfortable fact that consensus will not normally comprise 100% of the people (or even the experts) and the hard problems are (a) who counts as qualified enough to take part and (b) how many deviants would you still allow in the group defined by (a)? Furthermore in thought experiments you can easily imagine a 100% consensus on something that "in reality" is wrong. That said, neither "logical necessity" nor verifiable observation nor impartiality nor rules can be upheld without overwhelming consensus regarding their basis (unless of course you'd accept an unquestionable absolute authority). 

A fun fact is that Daston and Gallison in their Objectivity book of 2007 trace the history of the concept and the change of its meanings in science, and they argue that, if I remember it correctly, around the 18th century the terms of objectivity and subjectivity switched meanings, i.e., before they were used closer to the opposite of what we'd think of them now. (This has to be understood within a framework of continuous gradual change of the use of the concept also at any other time.)

And Humberto Maturana once said, referring to the role of objectivity claims in social discourse: "A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience."

I better tell that I've edited my OP to this:

"or 2 . objectivity - the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions,