Yousuf Khan wrote:
There was some dispute not too many years ago about the age of the universe
based on observations about expansion rate of the universe vs. the age of
the oldest stars known within our own galaxy (or possibly within other
galaxies too). Specifically based on expansion rates, the universe should be
around 15 billion yo, whereas based on the oldest stars the universe should
be at least 20 billions yo. Has that dispute been resolved? I presume one
party or the other has been proven wrong, or backed down on their assertion?

Most of this apparent discrepancy was clarified as a result of the Hipparcos
satellite recalibrations of the Cepheids and redetermination of the distances to
globular clusters. The clusters are now not as old as they once were thought to
be and the results of WMAP seem to point to an age of about 13.7 billion years
with error bars on the order of 10%, if memory serves.

For those interested in this finding that didn't make as much headlines as the
apparent discrepancy did - media feed on controversy/sensationalism, not on fact
finding - you might check out the Hipparcos web site:
http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/hipparcos.html