":: Let's look at a more mundane example, to demonstrate that less precise, but more comprehensible numbers are often advantageous. Some weeks ago, I changed the Oregon article to state that the population was estimated to have grown from 3.5 million to 3.7 million between 2000 and 2006, deleting the specific numbers (which are available in the cited source.) The result is less precise, but it is far easier for a reader to quickly get a general sense of the growth of the population. This article is frequently edited by intelligent people, and nobody made an objection. In this case, I would say that a specific birth date is essentially useless. If there is notability, it is in the fact that Jeri is so much younger than Fred; if that is the fact to be presented, it's better to say ""25 years younger."" The idea is to make the article as useful as possible to the reader. Please note, I'm not stating any preference as to whether the fact is included, merely saying that using the precise date of birth is not a good option. Either say 25 years, or omit the item entirely. -  
 "