Talk:List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees

New article

I created this article on May 6, 2007. Please feel free to add comments or suggestions on this Talk Page or on my User Talk Page. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

I've added the templates indicating possible violations of WP:V#Sources and WP:NOR. There are discrepancies between information of ages in this chart re:, e.g., James Dean and no sourcing is given; cf. link (now redirected) to WP:SYN as well. --NYScholar (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

E.g., if James Dean died at the age of 24 years old, it cannot be accurate to say that he was nominated at the age of 25 etc.; one's age does not continue after one dies. One is nominated (even posthumously) for the work that one did when still alive (logic). The computation of ages seems to be the result of original research and not properly sourced by reliable and verifiable documented third-party published sources. --NYScholar (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no original research here and there are no factual discrepancies. All of the information in this article is taken directly from the official Academy Awards web site. The link is found here: [1]. This reference source is already included and is listed at the bottom of the article. I am therefore removing the templates. Also, the Academy's convention in posthumous nominations (and awards) is to compute a "fictitious age" as if the nominee had actually been alive on the date of the nomination. That is, the "age" does not refer to the chronological age of the nominee. Rather, it refers to the elapse of time between the nominee's date of birth and the date of nomination. The Academy is free to compute "ages" in whichever way that organization sees fit. Thus, this is not original research ... and there is no factual discrepancy. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

There is a difference between a "source" in Wikipedia and an "external link"; for the differences pertaining to editing policies and guidelines, please consult: WP:V#Sources and WP:EL, as well as WP:BLP#Sources. The distinctions are discussed also on talk pages of the policy and guideline pages. I do understand your confusion; but listing a URL in an EL (External links) section is not the same as providing a "source citation" for material in an article. This list is an "article" in Wikipedia, and it needs source citations just as other Wikipedia articles do. It was not clear from your listing of the home page of the Academy Award site what your actual sources of information for the parts of your chart are (they are several separate webpages) and it was certainly not clear how the "Academy Award Statistics" webpages construct "ages" (definitely within quotation marks in the case of deceased persons). Some of this needs explanation in the lead (lede) of the article (top of the list prior to the charts). For each section of each chart on which you relied for information from separate webpages from the "Academy Award Statistics" database, it is possible to provide a properly-formatted source citation (others can help you with that process of editing perhaps). --NYScholar (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At your invitation at the start of this section, I added these comments for the improvement of this article's documentation of its (mostly your it seems) sources of information. You may not agree with them, and others may not agree with them, but I offered the comments in good faith. (I will be offline after posting this and will not see any replies.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Finch

There is some dispute as to whether Peter Finch's birth year is 1916 or 1912. In fact, discussion about this very dispute exists on the Talk Page under Peter Finch's Wikipedia article. AMPAS "officially" recognizes 1916 and thus ranks him accordingly in its list of oldest Academy Award winners and nominees. As AMPAS is the original source material cited for the data in this article, I will contact them to follow up on this disputed information. I will re-post here, once I hear back from AMPAS as to the their position on Finch's birth year and his resulting rank on the lists featured in this article. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Peter Finch's year of birth is 1916. (Source: The California Department of Health Services Office of Health Information and Research Vital Statistics Section) (See http://vitals.rootsweb.com/ca/death/search.cgi) (JosephASpadaro 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I contacted the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), which maintains a database of information on Academy Award winners and nominees. I contacted AMPAS to inquire about their official position regarding Peter Finch's year of birth in their database records. The response that I received from AMPAS is as follows: "We did some research into Peter Finch's birth date and do not find convincing evidence at this time to warrant a change to 1912. His birth date has been consistently reported as September 28, 1916. Recently (since 2005), the IMDb has changed the birth year to 1912, apparently to match the dates on Finch's grave marker, but no written documentation has been found to support this date. The year is given as 1916 in the California Death Records and in a memorial advertisement in The Hollywood Reporter placed by his widow after his death. Biographies by Trader Faulkner and Elaine Dundy, both published after his death, refer to the circumstances of his birth taking place during World War I. Both authors interviewed Finch's mother, who survived him. Dundy's "Finch, Bloody Finch" (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980) cites marriage and birth records, as well as family correspondence, which all support the 1916 date." Although the opinion of AMPAS is not dispositive of this issue, I believe that their reasoning (combined with the records of The California Department of Health Services Office of Health Information and Research Vital Statistics Section) is sound. Furthermore, AMPAS is the original source material cited for the data in this article. Thus, I propose that this article on Peter Finch should incorporate a birth year of 1916. (JosephASpadaro 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

As the most reliable sources already cited in the article on Peter Finch support changing the birth year from 1912 to 1916 (as well as the category at the bottom of the page), I've eliminated the previous discrepancies in that article and the chart of this article by correcting the birth year in Peter Finch to 1916; I also annotated the two peer-edited items in the EL sec. in that article to show that they have incorrect dates of birth for him. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

William Friedkin

Wasn't William Friedkin younger than Mike Nichols when he won an Academy Award for Best Director? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.106.30 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great question! Actually, it looks like William Friedkin and Mike Nichols were only 2 months apart in age (69 days to be exact) when they won their Best Director Oscars. All of the specific details are laid out in this page: List of Best Director winners by age at win. So, if the information in that article is correct -- which I believe it is -- then Nichols was age 36 years, 156 days old when he won his Oscar and Friedkin was age 36 years, 225 days old when he won his Oscar. Thus, Nichols was 69 days younger than Friedkin. So, as of the 79th Academy Awards for 2006, Nichols was the tenth youngest Best Director and Friedkin was the 11th youngest. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Age template

If someone can be bothered, the {{age in years and days}} template would work well here. —Moondyne 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I can -- and will -- be bothered. It is quite coincidental that you mention that. That project has been on my back burner for a long time (cleaning up this page ... and incorporating the age template). Literally, just yesterday, I started to clean it up -- using my Sandbox pages for the drafts until I have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Funny coincidence that you should mention it today. So, basically, look for it here soon. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps having the age in days is not such a great thing to have around right now, considering there are some entries that have been alive for 0 days, or other amounts that make no sense whatsoever. Or at least whoever was going to fix this should get to work on it soon. --24.226.62.161 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your above post? I don't understand what you are saying. Thanks. In the current chart, you do realize that there is a column called "Age in Days" ... but it is immediately preceded by a column called "Age in Years", correct? So, you should not be reading the "Age in Days" independently of -- or separately and apart from -- the "Age in Years". For example, the very first name on the chart is Clint Eastwood. And it says that his age in days is 272. This does not mean that he is 272 days old. It means that he is 74 years and 272 days old ... in conjunction with the "Age in Years" column directly to the left of the "Age in Days" column. Is this what you are referring to? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I reformatted the age columns, so as to clarify the above issue. This is a good temporary fix, for now, until I complete the incorporation into the chart of the "age in years and days" template as suggested above. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

I was (finally) able to re-format this page, using the {{age in years and days}} template. This project is now fully completed at this point. This project took much longer than expected to get off of my "back burner" and onto my "front burner". But, in any event, it's now done. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

Lack of source citations to document content here

Please see comment in the first section re: templates added to this article today. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the information in this article is taken directly from the official Academy Awards web site. The link is found here: [2]. This reference source is already included and is listed at the bottom of the article. I am therefore removing the templates. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

I responded to your comment on my talk page also. I do not find "all of the information in this article" at the link that you provide; you constructed the ages (years and days) it appears otherwise. I do not think that you should be removing these templates. Listing one link to an official website for all that material in those charts is not providing sources for all that material. See WP:V, particularly WP:V#Sources, and WP:BLP#Sources, as they are linked also in WP:EL. Many of the people that you have put in the chart are living persons; all of the information in the chart needs to be accurately and verifiably sourced, and one should not be depending on one website for all of the information in an article in Wikipedia; see and for more information. (Please examine the material at the links); this article has to follow WP:BLP as well as general WP:V policies and also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there are errors, as there appear to be, then Wikipedians need to be alerted to them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is propagating false information. There should be plenty of non-Academy-Award site sources to document some of the information in those charts. I did not find all of it in the link that you give, and, even if it is there (years, days for ages), it is not easy to locate as that link goes to many other links. It is a link to a hyperlinked list. --NYScholar (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The note on one of those listed linked webpages states:

The following statistics are based on the most reliable birthdate information available to us at the time of publishing. We welcome any information from primary sources that might indicate a different birthdate for an individual. Such sources might be birth or death certificates or databases based on such records, published interviews with the individual or published documents that cite their sources. This would NOT include the Internet Movie Database or other web sites that do not cite primary sources for their information.

If this source's "statistics are based on the most reliable birthdate information available to [the site] at the time of publishing" (which is when exactly?), how do you explain the discrepancies in your chart for the example given: James Dean? This article is being linked in other articles, where it is being used as support for claims about "youngest" and "oldest" winners and/or nominees; if it is inaccurate, it can lead to problems throughout other articles about other living (and dead) persons in Wikipedia. I haven't found the date of "publishing" for one of the webpages listed; I do not know how "up to date" or "current" it is. If there are discrepancies between information posted in those webpages and Wikipedia articles linked in the chart (to people's names), then note citations need to point out the discrepancies and use other, possibly more-reliable sources than this one site to resolve them. That is why using more than one source for verification is important. Wikipedia articles do not rely on single website sources listed in WP:EL as a matter of policy, and when they do, claims of plagiarism (from those sites) can also occur (WP:Plagiarism); see the qualification at WP:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism, where that [guideline/proposed policy] page asks for "copyright opinions" (it's not a resolved issue apparently). Please see WP:SYN again for the problems discussed there. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Clarification; corr. --NYScholar (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]

I honestly am not following your argument or your concerns. First, yes ... all of the information in this article is contained in the link provided. Namely, here: [3]. Granted, that is a link that links to further links. But, I have no control over how the Academy sets up their official web site. If you go to that link provided, and click on the 8th link contained therein (entitled "Oldest/Youngest Acting Nominees and Winners") ... you will get the correct link for all of the information contained in this article. I do not know how to add (as a source) the link from within a link ... if anyone knows how to create a direct link to that source, that would be great. Furthermore, I did not construct the ages (years and days) ... that is directly a computation from the Academy as listed on its official website. As to your posting ... what errors do there appear to be? Where is the false information? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

With regard to your concerns about James Dean's age, please see my reply on this Talk Page above in this section: Talk:List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees#New article. The Academy is free to compute "age" in whichever way it sees fit. It is not original research to report their ages. It is original research to change the Acadmy's data because you feel that it is a factual discrepancy. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

That only illustrates one of the many problems of depending on a single website and the creation of discrepancies within Wikipedia.

(ec)I already explained this more than once; see James Dean; scroll up to: #New article, where I commented first on this problem and then added this section at bottom of this page. I think that you may not be following my concerns, because you have not examined the information provided in the templates; it takes more time to do that than I think you have devoted to understanding this problem. The single source link to the official site of the Oscars/Academy Award does not point to precisely which webpage you have used for each section of each one of your charts. Please do not misunderstand: I appreciate that you have obviously done a lot of work to compile these charts, but, like any Wikipedia editor, you need to be in compliance with Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines pertaining to presenting your exact sources (not a general website URL) for the material in the charts. At least, that is how I understand WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also not a matter of my feeling that somehthing is wrong: the Wikipedia article for James Dean gives birth and death dates; either that article is incorrect or the material in your chart is incorrect. This discrepancy is in Wikipedia, not in me. --NYScholar (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what information you are referring to. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please tell me exactly what information is discrepant between this article and the James Dean article? I see no discrepancy whatsoever in either James Dean's birth date or his death date between the James Dean article and this article. Please be explicit and tell me what you are referring to. I do not see any discrepancies whatsoever. Both articles list his birth date as February 8, 1931. And the James Dean article lists his death date at September 30, 1955. This current article does not even list his death date at all, I believe. So, please be explicit and tell me exactly what is the discrepancy that you are referring to. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

[moved from my talk page. This discussion pertains to this article. --NYScholar (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]

Please see comment in the first section re: templates added to this article today. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the information in this article is taken directly from the official Academy Awards web site. The link is found here: [4]. This reference source is already included and is listed at the bottom of the article. I am therefore removing the templates. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

That does not address the discrepancies/errors in the chart. Listing one site as the "source" of all that information that you have compiled yourself violates WP:NOR; and see the templates at {{Unreferenced|date=August 2008}} and {{Onesource|date=August 2008}}; it is not acceptable to remove the templates as the problems are explained in the talk page. You have constructed dates and ages from material in the site, but the site [the single URL listed in the EL sec.] does not document all that material. See WP:EL regarding the listing of an external link and using it as a source, which also can violate WP:BLP#Sources as well as WP:V#Sources. You need to supply reliable and verifiable sources for the material that you have in the chart; it is not all listed in the Academy Award web[site] [the single URL] as you constructed it there. It is original research based on material in the website; if you make errors, you are providing false information in Wikipedia that cannot be verified at the link. An external link does not substitute for source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC) [I simply followed the one URL that you gave in EL sec. in reading this article; I've provided some bracket info. for further clarification; I didn't find the sources for the charts at that one URL in the EL sec.; if you used separate webpages for each part of your charts, then you can provide ref. citations for each part. That's the point. --00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Why are you saying that I compiled this information? Why are you saying that I constructed dates and ages? All of this information is taken verbatim from the official Academy website. I did nothing other than to place it into a chart. For the 12th time, yes -- that link contains all of the information in the article. ALL. Period. Why are you saying that I am making up this information, that I am constructing dates and ages, that I am compiling it? It is all there ... I merely typed it into a chart. I sincerely have no clue what you are even talking about at this point. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

I've already explained; you need to list the sources of the information; not a general website URL; for each section of your chart, you need citations for where the information comes from. Just listing one site in EL sec. does not show readers where the information comes from (directly); I moved this here from my talk page, because I cannot deal with it anymore. I've said all I can think of saying to you about it. Perhaps others can help. ---NYScholar (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Number 1 -- I already explained to you how the Academy computed James Dean's age. I believe I explained it about 5 times already. What part don't you get? And what exactly is the discrepancy? I still do not see it. Number 2 -- I already told you that I do not know how to create a wiki link that directs to a hyperlink. What do you want me to do about that? If I don't know how to do it, I don't know how to do it. That does not mean that the information in this article is not sourced. It means that I do not know how to properly format that source in wiki style. And I have asked anyone who knows how to do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

If "Also, the Academy's convention in posthumous nominations (and awards) is to compute a 'fictitious age' as if the nominee had actually been alive on the date of the nomination. That is, the 'age' does not refer to the chronological age of the nominee. Rather, it refers to the elapse of time between the nominee's date of birth and the date of nomination." is the case, then you need to provide a note to that effect in the article. Otherwise, people can become confused; how are they supposed to know this information if you do not provide it? Note citations can be made by following the procedures provided in WP:CITE. I can't take more time with this problem, but perhaps someone else can. (I didn't see your explanation above in the comment that you posted on my talk page; that is partly why the discussion belongs here and not on my talk page. I just noticed it a minute ago.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected problem of missing citations

After taking some time to add the citations for sources used throughout this article and sections of its charts, I removed the template that I added yesterday. --NYScholar (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Computation of ages

To avoid the possibility of future confusion and the appearance of discrepancies pertaining to ages of Wikified-linked articles on persons listed in this article (its charts), I also added a note clarifying how the AMPAS computes the ages of the persons that it lists in its Awards Database (currently in note 1 of this article). (Scroll up for earlier discussions). --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Bridges in the "Oldest to Win" section

Jeff Bridges was 60 years, 3 months, and 4 days old when he won his Oscar for Crazy Heart. (Born Dec 4th, 1949, won on March 7th, 2010) This should be in the box (I think it's 7 or 8), but I'm not exactly sure how to edit the box, so I didn't want to try. Vyselink (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NVM. I missed it. It's already there. Ignore me. :-)Vyselink (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Earliest born/Most recently born

For a while now I've been wondering how intresting it would be to see who the most recently born and the earliest born winners/nominees would be in any cat. I know the earliest is May Robson for nominees and the most recently born winner is Paquin. While the most recently born is either Abigail Breslin or the girl in Atonement (Can't remember her name!) And yeah most recently could be beaten this year with the True Grit girl. But I think it be intersting to see a lists for these. Also possibly oldest/youngest in other fields as well. 174.50.65.177 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the most recently born winners for best actor are:

1. Adrien Brody for The Pianist born on April 14, 1973. 2. Jamie Foxx for Ray born December 13, 1967. 3. Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote born on July 23, 1967. 4. Russell Crowe for Gladiator born on April 17, 1964. 5. Nicolas Cage for Leaving Las Vegas born on January 7, 1964.

5 earliest born best actor winners are:

1. George Arliss for Disraeli born on April 10, 1868. 2. Lionel Barrymore for A Free Soul born on April 12, 1878. 3. Emil Jannings for The Way of All Flesh and The Last Command born on July 23, 1884. 4. Wallace Beery for The Champ born on April 1, 1885. 5. Victor McLaglen for The Informer born on December 10, 1886.

Funny that 3 of the 5 earliest born were born in April.

5 most recently born best actress winners:

1. Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line born on March 22, 1976. 2. Kate Winslett for The Reader born on October 5, 1975. 3. Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose born on September 30, 1975. 4. Charlize Theron for Monster born on August 7, 1975. 5. Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby born on July 30, 1974.

Well there could be a change this year if Natalie Portman wins. Also how intresting it is that they really reward them young here and supporting actress where as actor and supporting actor they tend to wait till there older.

5 earliest born best actress winners:

1. Marie Dressler for Min and Bill born on April 9, 1868. 2. Mary Pickford for Coquette born on April 8, 1892. 3. Shirley Booth for [Come_Back,_Little_Sheba_(1952_film)|Come Back, Little Sheba]] born on August 30, 1898. 4. Helen Hayes for The Sin of Madelon Claudet born on October 10, 1900. 5. Norma Shearer for The Divorcee born on August 10, 1892.

And yes, May Robson would be the earliest born nominee in any cat. Funny though, Marie is just one day older then George Arliss, making her the earliest born acting win by just one day. Also intresting is that Marie Dressler was the earliest acting winner to die, but no other best actress winner died till 1965 when Judy Holiday died young.

Well I have to go now, but I do agree this would be a intresting list. Also it would be intresting to see the other categories as well. Kamkek (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible changes with nominations this year (2010)

Okay I thought this be intresting to bring up. But who are some frontrunners that can appear in any of the top 10s? Well for supporting actress we have Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit who will be the 3rd youngest if nominated. Then for lead actor we have Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network who will be among the 10 youngest nominated. Then if Robert Duvall gets nominated for Get Low he will be the oldest ever. Of course some rumors are saying that Steinfeld is being pushed for lead, if that happens she will be the youngest ever. No director looks to make it on to either list.

Something I found intresting is how less then 10 actresses over the age of 50 have won lead. I mean I have noticed that there are younger then actor there, but wow. Kamkek (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Intresting though that I should note that if Eastwood is ever nominated again he will break the director record. (He is on there 3 times already.) While lead actor deffiently has a gap between 1 and 2. (As does actress between 1 2 and 3!) And of course lead actor has a giant gap between the 2 youngest nomiantions. Kamkek (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Age chart for multiple nominations

This page needs lists for youngest/oldest to win second, third, etc. E.g., Kate Winslet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean nominated, since yeah Kate has only one once, and also only Katharine Hepburn and Jack Nicolson have one 3 or more times for actors/actresses. Kate though is the youngest to have 2nd/3rd/ect nominations. Kamkek (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

O.K. so you could make charts for winning twice and being nominated 2-6 or 8 times. Maybe only top 5 for each.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please let me add my two cents. I see two problems with the suggestion. First, we would need reliable sources (i.e., no original research). All of the information in this article comes from the official Academy Award website. The official website does not contain lists such as those suggested in the above posts. Perhaps other reliable sources do, but I would tend to doubt that they do so in any organized, consistent, and updated manner (as the Academy does for this present list). Second ... if indeed we were to create a list like that, it would simply be the names Katharine Hepburn; Jack Nicholson; Meryl Streep; (and the like); over and over and over again. As a general rule (yes, there are some exceptions) ... there are very few people who get multiple nominations, much less, multiple awards. So, to break them down and to categorize them as the Top Five Oldest / Youngest to Win 2 nominations / 3 nominations / etc ... would simply be a list of the same names over and over again. Not too interesting, I'd think. Plus, again, the problem of citing reliable sources. If anyone wants to create such a list, add it to this Talk Page, so that we can see if it does indeed contain interesting data ... or if, as I suspect, it merely re-hashes the same (expected) names over and over again. Thanks! That's my two cents! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

As I recall, Kate broke a different person's record each time (not one of the names you mentioned above). However, I do not know a source for the data.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the only way we could do it is if we had other cats like "sound" or something. I do like the idea of recently born that someone else brought up though. Kamkek (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes that might happen this year (2010-winners)

Well I was right about Stienfeld and Eisenberg, didn't realize they appear so down low though on the nominations! While Lawrence is the 2nd youngest lead actress! Okay now, for winners:

Lead actor:

If Jeff Bridges wins he will be the 5th oldest. If Jesse Eisenberg wins he will be the youngest. If James Franco wins he will be somewhere between the 8th and 10th youngest (I saw he was born in 78. Let me check again to see where he was)...Okay looks like 10th youngest.

Lead actress:

If Jennifer Lawrence wins she will be the youngest. If Annette Bening wins she will be the 8th oldest.

Supporting actress:

If Hailee Steinfeld wins she will be the 3rd youngest. If Jacki Weaver wins she will be the 8th oldest. (Amazing since I don't think that many of us have heard of her before!)

No changes in supporting actor/director. Kamkek (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman

I was just wondering why Morgan Freeman is not on the list for oldest Best Actor winners. When he won for Million Dollar Baby, he was in his mid sixties. That would make him somewhere in he top 5, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.14.51 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

He won for supporting, not lead, thats why. Kamkek (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

He won for supporting not leading where he would have been among the oldest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Other categories?

Okay I was wondering, what about stuff like screenplay? Or visual effects/cinematagrophy/art direction/costumes/ect. Also Eli Warrich should be added to the honary section. Kamkek (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The information in this article comes directly from the Academy's website. The Academy only lists "oldest and youngest" statistics for actors and directors; they do not list such statistics for any other award categories. You make a good point about Eli Wallach ... in this article, the Honorary Awards section of "oldest and youngest" only covers Honorary Awards for acting. So, I guess Wallach's inclusion depends on whether the Academy recognized him for his "acting" (which seems likely) or for something else. I guess we will have to wait and see as to whether or not the Academy adds him to their official website database. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

Oh okay well maybe we should put up that earliest born/most recently born that someone else suggested a while back. Kamkek (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "earliest born" and "most recently born" ... that information is already available for Oscar winners (not nominees) in articles such as List of Best Actor winners by age. There is a similar article for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Director. These articles offer the date of birth of each winner, as well as some other information. Since they are "sortable" tables, a reader can easily sort on the "date of birth" column in order to ascertain which winner is the "earliest born" and/or the "most recently born". Again, these articles detail the actual Oscar winners only (not nominees) and only in the categories that I have delineated here. Hope this is helpful. Here are the links below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

• List of Best Director winners by age
• List of Best Actor winners by age
• List of Best Actress winners by age
• List of Best Supporting Actor winners by age
• List of Best Supporting Actress winners by age

Yeah know about those, but earliest/most recently born nominated would be intresting. Kamkek (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that it would be very interesting. The problem is that there would be around 400 nominees in each category, if we tried to list them all by birth date. Seems like a lot of work. As far as the one person (in each category) who is the earliest born ... and the one person (in each category) who is the most recently born ... perhaps that info is already contained in the various articles? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

Very true, the only one I'm sure about for earliest born is May Robson, born 1858. Most recently-Abigail Breslin. Kamkek (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Longest lived winners/nomination

I am intrested in seeing a chart for this. I know Rainer and Burns be the 2 longest life spans for winners, but some other things be intresting. Maybe I'll try this over the weekend if nobody minds. Kamkek (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another intresting one to add on (maybe to the main list for all of the winners) would be the longest they stayed alive after winner. Kamkek (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll go ahead and try this. Kamkek (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is getting to hard for those that are alive still. Maybe someone else can do this. Kamkek (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Max von Sydow and Christopher Plummer

Nominated for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (film) (supporting actor) and he is currently 82, making him the oldest ever academy award nominee for that category. Also, Christopher Plummer was nominated in the same category, and he is also 82! Beginners. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They are both already in the article - and actually Hal Holbrook is still the oldest in that category. For An Angel (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Must've been looking at the wrong table. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

The age is wrong for this entry. It says he was 29 years old, but this is obviously not true, because he died when he was 28. He would have been 29 if he was still alive, but since he wasn't, the age is misleading. Also, the date of award instead lists his date of death. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. But this is how the Academy "computes" his age (and any deceased person's age) for purposes of these records. They use the age as if the person were still alive at the time of the award/nomination. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, at the very bottom of the article, see the References section. In the first reference, it says: N.B.: Ages (including for those persons receiving nominations and/or awards posthumously) are computed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS); for nominations, all ages are computed "from date of birth to date of nominations announcement"; for awards won, all ages are computed "from date of birth to date of awards ceremony". That is what I was explaining in my post above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Error in Best Supporting Actress ages

Oldest Best Supporting Actress Winners Josephine Hull is 74 years (and 85 days), winning for Harvey (1950).

See AMPAS Database for this: 74 years, 85 days. *Josephine Hull, Harvey (1950) [January 3, 1877 - March 29, 1951]

The information on Hull is inaccurate in these Wikipedia pages.

Tim Dirks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.95.115 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anna Paquin

Anna Paquin was 21 years old when she won the Oscar in the movie The Piano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.250.30.78 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that she was 21? She was 11. One of the youngest ever, in fact. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list for longest lived after nomination/win

Okay so yes Luise Rainer is by far the winner here (though I think Jackie Cooper has the record nomination wise), I was thinking of a list for the longest lifespan after nomination/win (James Stewart has the record for best actor) While I'm at it-the longest lifespan total (Think someone brought that up already) Wgolf (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There's this: List of oldest living Academy Award winners. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Length of records

Hey I like that idea, can we have it to see even further like how long some were held? (Well unless if it just goes back to 1 or 2, like best actress its amusing that it was so long) Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating

Records are broken in 2015 Oscars, including best director and best supporting actor. Perhaps more. Princetan (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the records were broken in 2015. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Best Picture

I'm considering adding a section on oldest and youngest producers to be awarded Best Picture, and possibly doing it for other categories later. This information is not in the original source, so I am the first person to gather this information. Any opinions? Should I, shouldn't I, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbb618 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is writing excluded from the superlative heading?

I'm a bit confused by this article. The superlative category indicates that it's only for "standard competitive categories." Is writing considered a "standard competitive category"? If so, James Ivory (Call Me by Your Name) just became the oldest winner yesterday, winning the award at 89-years-old. I wanted to check in with the community before editing because it wasn't clear to me whether writing is included in this article or not. Thanks! 76.218.12.208 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. The Academy only keeps full databases on the ages of the nominees for the acting and directing categories, and as such, they're the only ones we can verify for sure. Ivory is probably the oldest winner ever, but we can't know for sure without looking through all 90 ceremonies ourselves. If people want me to, I can delve into the numbers and try to make a full list, but until then, let's stick with what we have now. Sbb618 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Got it! Thanks! For what it's worth, many reputable sources are reporting that Ivory is the oldest Academy Award winner of all time. The Guardian, LA Times, etc. etc. all confirm him as the oldest Academy Award winner ever. Also, many reputable sources reported that Agnès Varda (Faces Places) is the oldest nominee ever (she's eight days older than Ivory). 76.218.12.208 (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think a couple years back, when Ennio Morricone won for The Hateful Eight, the Academy confirmed that he was the oldest winner ever. Extending it from that, you could say that Ivory is officially the oldest-ever winner. Sbb618 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall youngest winner

I think the overall youngest winner is Shirley Temple. 夏瑾凉安 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

Was 22 when she won the Oscar for Best Actress, making her the 3rd youngest recipient, before Patty Duke 101.53.217.112 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WRONG. Patty Duke won Best Supporting Actress, while Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress. Lawrence is the second youngest winner of the latter award; Marlee Matlin is the youngest. $chnauzer 17:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

John Williams

John Williams has become the oldest person ever nominated for an Oscar [5], though since it's not in one of the "big five" categories for acting or directing, I don't know whether it belongs on this page. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Youngest to two...

Billy Eilish has won a second award for Best Original Song at, by my count, just 22 years of age - which means the section on "youngest to win two" is missing a name and a category. I'll keep an eye out for a notable source that supports this calculation. C37H67NO13 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)