Bubbles (chimpanzee) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 15, 2009 Good article nominee Listed August 4, 2009 Peer review Reviewed September 6, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 4, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 9, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Michael Jackson Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

someone else tried to change this and it just got edited back. there are no sources of the birth date of this monkey. you wont find a single one. even the center for great apes, the place he lives, doesnt know. 2607:FEA8:891E:7D00:80FD:4EB9:D158:389F (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by the previous user, I found out there was no actual source for "April 30th" as Bubbles' birthday after seeing the Center for Great Apes themselves in two posts state that they don't know it ( 1 & 2 - these are Facebook links but from the verified page for the sanctuary) and instead his birthday is celebrated on the day he joined the sanctuary (March 11th). So I looked through the edit history and found this revision (dated 6th April 2017) that added the birthday as well as listing Bubbles as a "Cuttlefish Researcher". The latter was removed in this edit but the falsified birthday remained. I attempted to edit this last year here but it was added back here. I have reverted this change again now, but please try to keep the birthday accurate (in that, there is none other than "1983", as stated by the Center for Great Apes themselves both on official pages and their website). Thank you. Mario64325 (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At one point the article says that after Bubbles became too strong to live with Michael, he was replaced by two other chimpanzees who the general public believed to be Bubbles.

Later, it says that misleading news stories said that there were more than one Bubbles.

So which is true? I suggest that the discrepancy in the article should either be corrected (if enough evidence exists) or acknowledged (if no one is sure). You could say, "According to some reports...." Jfodsire (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles neither started life as a pet and is no longer a pet, the article even states that once he matured, he was not suitable as a "pet" (as chimpanzees aren't "pets"). The short description is more accurate to describe the subject as a chimpanzee or animal that was once owned/cared for by Jackson. I disagree that repeating one word is against the SD policy, as it explicitly states that isn't an issue to worry about and this is common across other articles about notable chimpanzees—though I think "animal" is a suitable compromise. MossOnALog^Talk 19:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SDAVOID states: "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title, including information in parentheses (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)" [emphasis added].

Here are some good examples of other short descriptions for notable chimpanzees with names:

• Travis (chimpanzee): Chimpanzee known for attacking a person [1]
• Oliver (chimpanzee): Chimpanzee falsely promoted as a chimpanzee-human hybrid [2]
• Ai (chimpanzee): Chimpanzee subject of the Ai project (1976/1977–2026) [3]
• Ham (chimpanzee): First non-human great ape launched into space (1957–1983) [4]
• Washoe (chimpanzee): Chimpanzee language research subject [5]
• Ayumu (chimpanzee): Chimpanzee research subject, child of Ai [6]
• Enos (chimpanzee): Only chimpanzee and third great ape to orbit Earth [7]

And another example where "chimpanzee" is repeated in the short description for context:

• Kasakela chimpanzee community: Community of wild eastern chimpanzees in Tanzania [8]

MossOnALog^Talk 19:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud, based on my interpretation of the policy above, as well as the demonstrated validity of this interpretation via the given examples, I strongly think the short description should be "Chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson". Based on my arguments above, I also strongly oppose the use of the word "pet" in the short description, and think that it should, at a minimum, be replaced with a more accurate word such as "animal" or "ape" if others can demonstrate that "chimpanzee" is not appropriate. MossOnALog^Talk 19:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid none of that convinces me that we should repeat information that's already in the article title. Popcornfud (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about one of the two other options I suggested? MossOnALog^Talk 19:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All chimpanees are animals and apes, so that would just be varying the word for the sake of it instead of adding information. Popcornfud (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be adding context, as the guidance for short descriptions says to do and as is standard for articles of notable individual animals. MossOnALog^Talk 20:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think MossOnALog^Talk has a point. Bubbles is known for being MJ's pet, true, but the current description makes it sound as if he's still a pet, which he is not. "Ape formerly owned by Michael Jackson" or "Michael Jackson's former pet" both work imho. Monkeywire (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please justify why "pet" is an appropriate term to use when many of the sources aren't using that term to describe the subject and multiple dictionaries include the criteria that a "pet" is a domesticated animal while the scientific consensus is that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have not been domesticated.

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet
  • "a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility"
• https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pet_n2?tab=meaning_and_use#31031755
  • 1) "1539–Chiefly Scottish, English regional (northern) and Irish English (northern). A lamb or (later occasionally) other domestic animal reared by hand". 2) 1710–
  • An animal (typically one which is domestic or tame) kept for pleasure or companionship.
• https://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/blog/spark-blog-the-science-behind-why-chimps-are-not-pets/201/
  • "Although chimpanzees share more DNA in common with humans than they do with gorillas, they are not domesticated animals."
• https://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/02/michael.jackson.bubbles/index.html
  • "Bubbles gained fame over two decades ago as Michael Jackson's simian companion."
  • "Bubbles, Michael Jackson's former chimp, is enjoying retirement at a Florida sanctuary."
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/1/taking-names-34907406/
  • "With all the discussion surrounding the shocking death of Michael Jackson, people have wondered whatever happened to his beloved chimpanzee, Bubbles. The chimp is alive and well and monkeying around in a Florida primate sanctuary, People.com reports."
  • "Now 26, the chimp - who lived with Mr. Jackson in the late 1980s - has spent the past four years at the Center for Great Apes, home to 42 chimpanzees and orangutans."
• https://centerforgreatapes.org/chimpanzee/bubbles/
  • "Bubbles is one of the most well-known chimpanzees living at the Center for Great Ape and one of the most beloved by staff and fans alike. Bubbles has lived an extraordinary life. Reportedly born in a biomedical lab, he was hand-raised by a Hollywood animal trainer before becoming the well-known companion of pop icon Michael Jackson. During those early years, Bubbles found himself in the spotlight, appearing in music videos, movies, and even joining Jackson on a promotional tour in Japan at just four years old."
  • "As he grew stronger, Bubbles was no longer suited for life around people and was eventually retired from show business. In 2005, he found a new beginning at the Center for Great Apes, arriving with several other chimpanzees from the entertainment industry."

MossOnALog^Talk 23:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tons of reliable secondary sources refer to Bubbles as a pet. Your CNN source, for example.

2. Where possible, Wikipedia should be written in plain English (see WP:PLAINENGLISH). "Pet" is a widely used and widely understood plain English term. If you're trying to convince me that keeping a chimpanzee as a pet is a contradiction in terms, I'm not buying it. Popcornfud (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud Chimp, animal, companion are widely understood terms in plain English and you haven't adequately explained why those are not appropriate.

If one thinks that an undomesticated primate kept in captivity is appropriately described as a pet, then a logical extension (an obviously problematic one) would be that a human slave could be described as a pet—I really hope that isn't an acceptable belief by anyone but that is an implication of the logic that you have presented.

You have yet to convince me that pet is an appropriate description, so consensus has not been reached. MossOnALog^Talk 23:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the first point: as I have explained, we should avoid "chimpanzee" because we avoid duplicating information in the short description that is article title, per WP:SHORTDESC.

You respond that it's fine to do this if we need to repeat a word or two for context, per WP:SHORTDESC, but as chimpanzee is already in the article title, this is not a situation where repeating the word, or explaining that a chimpanzee is an animal, adds context, or information. It's simply adding redundancy.

To the second point: I understand the hypothetical, but this is like saying Wikipedia should not call meat products "food" because you object to animals being treated as food. You may object to the keeping of chimpanzees as pets, and in fact so do I. But it happens, and this is how Bubbles is described in countless reliable sources, and what made him notable from an encylopedic perspective. Popcornfud (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is all about here. Primates are ill-suited as pets but Bubbles is known to the rest of the world as the former pet of a very famous person, however screwed up that may be. Monkeywire (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeywire because to be accurate, you'd have to say "former pet" since the subject isn't a pet, and words like "former" are adviced against for this.

Putting in a good faith effort to improve an article, including asking others for input, isn't "fuss" and it feels a bit dismissive to describe a valid concern supported by arguments and sources that way to me. MossOnALog^Talk 23:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion - see above. I agree that "Pet once owned by Michael Jackson" is a problem for the short description because Bubbles is no longer a pet (and hasn't been for eons) Monkeywire (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeywire thank you for your clarification and input. MossOnALog^Talk 00:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Willis is no longer an actor, either - it doesn't matter. We describe what makes the subject notable. Popcornfud (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. If you want to play it that way, make the description "Michael Jackson's pet." That would be better than what you have currently because "Pet once owned by MJ" employs the past tense in such a way as to suggest that Bubbles is still a pet.

"Ape once owned by Michael Jackson" is better, imho.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with referring to him as MJ's pet; the current wording is simply inaccurate. Monkeywire (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeywire I agree with what you've said here.

To clarify my stance, I don't particularly have issues with the body of the article referring to the subject as a pet as long as it's as nuanced and proportionate as the sources, but the lead and short description should not since the sources' introductions generally don't and there's less room for context and nuance in these first couple sentences. MossOnALog^Talk 14:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is your best argument. Animals that shouldn't be kept as pets nonetheless often are, and there's some debate over the use of tame vs domesticated when speaking about an individual animal instead of the species as a whole - but the fact that he is not currently a pet and has not been for most of his life is a much stronger case. Avoiding duplication is a recommendation, not a hard rule, and I doubt it was ever intended to imply that clunkier wording should be substituted purely to avoid repetition. singsape, primate, etc macks of breaking out the thesaurus to try to make a middle school book report sound posh. All of the other examples support this line of reasoning. Chimpanzee is beyond a doubt the simplest and most accurate description for this animal, which is the entire point If people were asked to describe him in one sentence most would say something close to "Chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson". When in doubt, KISS. (Kinda feel like that one should be a guideline here!) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input.

I don't think the debate on individuals versus populations is relevant here, as this individual chimpanzee and his captors demonstrated that he is not a domesticated individual and was unambiguously not suited for the habitat provided by Jackson, which is a point frequently discussed in the sources. That's a significant point I've been attempting to make but I understand that it's easy to misinterpret what I've been saying as advocacy against keeping monkeys as pets (which isn't my goal with changing the wording, I just disagree with the description of calling him a pet since it's widely reported that he isn't).

I agree with you that "Chimpanzee once owned by Michael Jackson" is exactly how I would describe Bubbles if somebody asked, as it's simple, concise, and gives the correct amount of detail to understand the subject. MossOnALog^Talk 15:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point there was that status as a pet is partially determined by how the owner treats them, not just how the animal behaves - treating them as a pet when it's not appropriate is frequently how people get injured or killed, but we don't say that an aggressive dog can't be called a pet. But again, not really relevant here, because that was only for a short time. I think you're fine. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say aggressive dogs aren't pets because they are a domesticated species, so that example and logic doesn't really apply here. I wouldn't consider 'pet' to be an acceptable description for a moose or giraffe just because somebody is holding one captive in their home and feeding it, regardless of the sensationalized headlines that might throw around a rather meaningless term like 'pet'.

I'm ready to drop this though since there's enough to agree on otherwise and there's not much point in debating semantics if content is agreeable. MossOnALog^Talk 00:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, I do appreciate you taking the time to give your input. MossOnALog^Talk 00:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud not a good comparison, Bruce Willis retired from a career of acting—Bubbles was owned by MJ for a period of his life that has otherwise been spent in research facilities and rescue sanctuaries. MossOnALog^Talk 14:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]