Given ther stimulus from another question i read the wikipedia article on anti-realism, there it is mentioned (emphasis mine):
In analytic philosophy, the term anti-realism describes any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. This latter construal is sometimes expressed by saying "there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not P".
How come the stance that verification-transcendent statements must necessarily be either true or false (and specificaly in a static sense) is labeled as realistic while the refusal to take such a stance is labeled as anti-realistic?
On this point i could summon very realistic examples from natural science (i.e physics) to make a counter-argument, but i will not pursue this here.
Of course this labeling (i avoid the word definition on purpose) is (primarily) used in analytic philosophy and may not be shared by other approaches or schools of philosophy (for example, dialectics).