It's the oldest one KNOWN in the world. Until we find an older one. You know, just because you found something now, does not exclude you will find anything else in the future.

It's obvious though. Should they also note who it is that knows it to be the oldest, along with when and where they knew this? Just in case?

Did you get burned on an exam over this or something? It's silly to be so exact about this.

> It's silly to be so exact about this.

It's silly for scientists to be always surprised by finding some older stuff over and over again as they scratch more of the earth. Statistically speaking, there is no reason that the oldest stuff would be found first, yet you keep seeing headlines "this is older than what we thought" making them look like complete naive people every single time.

I get the point, but it's a bit pedantic. We don't preface every superlative with 'that we know of.' It's kinda implied.