Talk:Bubbles (chimpanzee)/Archive 1

Bubbles in popular chimpanzee Culture
I remembered seeing Bubbles in a film(I think portrayed by another monkey, or computer generated, whatver), where he was moon walking, and this guy said he once was owned by certain pamous pop singer, But he wasnt allound to say who?

- Its called The Animal feturing Rob Schneider ~ Comment by Gaogier

Adding external links
I think I saw a great link about bubbles in the Register. I'm going to track it down. +sj + 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Koons statue
Pity Norway and France do not allow freedom of panorama for works of art, otherwise this or this photo could be used for this article. Note: the CC licenses do not override the fact that the countries do not allow pictures of copyrighted works of art to be distributed. Now if only the third statue is in a country that allows FOP... Jappalang (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a pity. It would be nice to have in the article.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"free candy"
From the article: "Bubbles would frequently sit with Jackson in the property's cinema, eating free candy."

It seems like this would be a given, as chimps don't tend to have an understanding of money.

- Jack Vermicelli 98.243.83.56 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Times of India citation
The India Times a reliable source for celebrity gossip? Seriously? References to insane chimp suicide removed unless someone comes up with a better source.

Bubbles now in Florida
He's been there since 2005 when Bob Dunn's Sylmar sanctuary closed. http://www.centerforgreatapes.org/residents-details.aspx?id=6

Suicide
As there are 2 sources, i don't see how it is possible for this reporting to be contested. It was clearly reported. It may not have been true, but that can be said of almost all the news stories used as sources here.YobMod 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-added the {dubious} tag after starting the following discussion on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk "Can a chimpanzee really commit suicide?" A suicidal chimpanzee seems like an exceptional claim to me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether a chimp can or can't attempt suicide, I don't know. It is certainly open for debate. The suicide attempt is referenced in reliable sources, so I'm inclined to keep it.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, these are reliable sources. But are they reliable for this particular claim?  Remember that these are reporters writing articles for the entertainment section of their newspapers and probably don't have any background in primatology. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the way it's expressed in the article ('reported'), is sufficient enough to alert readers that there are doubts about whether a chimpanzee can attempt suicide, while not ruling it out altogether.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This source says "rumored". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the source says rumored could we have some talk by animal behavior experts, maybe find any attempt ever for this to have happened with a chimp? And the way they were expressed in the articles.. Barely more than a slight tag on last sentence.  Urban legend. Cs302b (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We are not here to debate whether a chimp can commit suicide, so the (amateur) opinions of the reference desk are immaterial. The stated claim "it was reported" is fully sourced to reliable sources. If someone wants to expand on that by finding a source saying chimps cannot commit suicide, that would be great, but as far as i can find, there is no such research and certainly no consensus. The allegations that MJ bleached the skin of his entire body are also scientifically dubious, but that doesn't stop us reporting the rumour. Unless someone can even provide a RS giving the opinion that this story (or chimp suicide) is impossible, we should not be trying to insert our (non-expert) POV, even using tags.YobMod 07:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This book claims "Contemporary sociobiology show that suicide is now more common in animals than was previously thought" but also "if certain animals commit true suicide (and this is highly debatable...)". Being debatable does not mean we should be implying the story is untrue - almost everything is debatable! Maybe rewording to make it more obviously a claim? "In 2003, a rumour that xxx was reported" or "in 2003 it was reported that Bubbles keepers had claimed...". Would such a change be acceptable?YobMod 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the chimp suicide section. There's simply not enough reliable sources out there to pass Verifiability on this one. To leave it in the article would only serve to perpetuate a cycle of pure speculation and inadvertently encourage others to repeat the same urban legend in future ill-researched pieces of journalism. If there's a WP:RS out there, it better mention which hospital Bubble checked into along with other verifiable pieces of information. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted (sorry!) as it seemed too hasty, considering we only just started discussing this, and the GA was only passed last month. But now i see the telegraph source is from this month. So i think it likely the journalist just copied it from here. If we are down to only one somewhat RS due to wikiality, i agree with moving it to the talk page.YobMod 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someone needs to find an original report of the incident from 2003 before it should be added back to the article. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is the text, if future editors want to search for sources: In December 2003, it was reported that Bubbles had tried to commit suicide. The chimp was taken to a hospital in time to be saved. <b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only find one 2003 source; the one in the article. I've added two further references from this year. Personally, I think that's more than enough verification that the claim is out there. If anyone disagrees with its inclusion in the article, please feel free to open a Request for Comment.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to add it back to the article, you shouldn't remove the {dubious} tag while discussion is ongoing. Anyway, Yahoo News refers these as "rumors".  How about we use that word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted it as a rumour. Is that then a weak enough claim to remove the dubious tag?<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 07:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes. I added a cite to Yahoo News to support the use of the word "rumor".  Blogs aren't usually reliable sources so I removed those.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible allusion in Dragon Ball?
In the Dragon Ball anime series, Kaio(or King/North Kai) has a pet primate named Bubbles. Is this a possible allusion that could be listed under "In popular culture"? GeneticInsanity (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We couldn't add that information unless a person working with the series reveals that it is a reference to Michael Jackson's Bubbles. It would also have to be backed up by a reliable source.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This cannot be serious
"Bubbles regularly accompanied Michael Jackson to church services and considered himself to be a devout Christian. However, in a bizarre twist he became disenchanted with the bible preferring to study evolution, which led him to become quite a militant atheist and critic of intelligent design. Bubbles believed himself an excellent example of evolution in action, and cursed his undeveloped vocal apparatus, which he said (non verbally) robbed him of his voice."

I mean come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits
75% of this article is focused on Jackson - not Bubbles - and for the very simple reason that there is not much to say about Bubbles. Bubbles was a pet - like any other dog, cat, bird, or fish - and not notable (he didn't have a film career, for example). Bubbles is not notable in and of himself but only because of his association with Jackson - who obviously exploited the animal for publicity and psychologial reasons. I've read through the critiques on this article and I think you need to take the advice of experienced editors. Allow others to clean this article up a bit and rid it of fancruft. Simply because this or that allegation or rumor has been reported in the media does not mean it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. Stand away for a bit and let others wrangle this article into something suitable for an encyclopedia. The article can be reduced to two or three well written paragraphs with everything anyone could want to know about Bubbles - without the fancruft. Wikipeida policy is clear on this and if you don't want your material edited, then don't write for Wikipedia. SoniaSyle (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the information is relevant to Bubbles, and is needed for a complete and comprehensive understanding of the animal and his notability. Chopping away at the article limits that understanding, as well as the context of Bubbles' role in Jackson's life. It is not a matter of not wanting people editing an article; it is a matter of discussing matters with main contributors (who have put their time and effort into it) before hacking large chunks out of the article.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you admit this article could stand some editing and revision. It's just that you want to approve any revisions. Am I correct? SoniaSyle (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when it involves hacking the article to pieces. Having enough contextual understanding is always better than having too little. Reducing the information damages the reader's contextual understanding of the chimpanzee, his notabilty, his role in Jackson's and his impact on the singer's image.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are "too close" to the subject and cannot see that this article is unencyclopedic and far, far from FA. First of all, Bubbles is NOT notable. Notability is not inherited. If Bubbles is notable only because of his connection to Jackson then everyone and everything in connection with Jackson and each should have a stand alone article. You need to stand aside and let others bring this article into line with Wikipedia standards. The focus should be upon Bubbles (however slight it is) - not Jackson. This article is not FA material. SoniaSyle (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't think Bubbles is notable, then take the article to AFD, instead of whining here.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples of turning the focus from Bubbles to Jackson:
 * "...Bubbles moved to Neverland Ranch in 1988, after Jackson purchased it for $17 million." How much Jackson paid for the ranch has nothing to do with Bubbles and should not be recorded. If this juicy detail MUST be recorded here then "Bubbles was moved to Jackson's $17 million Neverland Ranch" is better though how much Jackson paid for the ranch is still gossip, even if true. "...Bubbles moved to Neverland..." is bad because it attributes some sort of human ability to Bubbles - making a choice. Bubbles had no choice in the move. "Bubbles was moved" is correct, not "Bubbles moved". There are other instances of this in the article.
 * This section could be said more effectively in less words: "The chimpanzee slept in a crib at the corner of the singer's bedroom. Bubbles would frequently sit and eat candy with Jackson in the property's cinema. He also ate at the dining table. When it came time for the animal to relieve himself, Jackson would allow Bubbles to use his private toilet, although the chimpanzee sometimes wore a diaper." How about: "The chimp slept in a crib in Jackson's bedroom, ate candy in the Neverland movie theater, was fed at the dining table, wore a diaper, and used Jackson's toilet." This stuff does not need to be recorded here anyway because 99% of chimps kept as pets do the same sort of things. It's not material for an encyclopedia.
 * This section can be completely deleted because it has NOTHING to do with Bubbles: "Jackson's maids later stated that they were not impressed with the behaviour of the various chimps that the singer had kept over the years. One housekeeper told of how she had to clean up the droppings of one of the chimpanzees, after it had hurled its feces at the bedroom wall. Another maid described a chimpanzee called Max tearing off his diaper before crawling into Jackson's bed." Nothing to do with Bubbles - delete it. Use it in a larger article called "Michael Jackson's pets". SoniaSyle (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of your points would improve the article, and I have introduced the first two bulleted points. I do not agree with with your last bullet point; the information is relevant to Bubbles as he was also a chimpanzee at the ranch, and the maid's comments likely concern him as well. They provide contextual understanding of Bubbles' potential behaviour, as well as the chimpanzee enviroment at Neverland Ranch. It allows readers to understand the primatology of the chimpanzees at Neverland, making it relevant to Bubbles.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Extensive revisions
I've made major revisions on this article in an attempt to present Bubbles as an animal rather than some sort of quasi-human with thoughts, feelings, and choices typical of humans. I've tried as well to focus on Bubbles rather than Jackson. Bubbles is the subject here - not Jackson. There's no reason, for example, in having a separate section on Michael Jackson's death. By the time MJ died, Bubbles was out of his life and such a section is unnecessary in an article about Bubbles. I've tightened the prose and cut the flab to bring the prose into encyclopedic style. SoniaSyle (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with this hacking away. Bubbles is known purely for his association with Michael Jackson. Notability, in this case, is inherited. All the information regarding Bubbles at the time of Jackon's death is what readers would be looking for in a comprehensive article, which this becomes less and less the more you chop away. As another editor said, the page is a de facto biographical subpage for Michael Jackson, and not just a simple documentation of Bubbles' alone. Major overhauls of articles, particularly FAs and GAs, should be discussed on the talk page first. Such controversial edits should be based on consensus.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article needs extensive revision. As I said elsewhere, you need to stand aside for a few weeks and let other editors look at this. Bubbles is an animal and should be consistently presented as such in the article. There should be no suggestion that he is some sort of quasi-human being with human thoughts and feelings or that Jackson and the chimp had a "relationship". Humans have relationships, not humans and animals. Bond is the best word and is the word used most frequently in literature about humans and animals. This sentence is ridiculous: "Bubbles and Jackson accompanied each other on several outings and would often talk together." Humans and animals don't "talk" together and Bubbles didn't "accompany" Jackson. "Jackson took Bubbles on outings" is correct - if this needs to be recorded at all. Bubbles didn't "reside" here or there. He is an animal, a pet, and is "kept". Jackson had a warped, drug-fueled perception of the world and some of that perception has seeped into this article. This is poor - very poor - encyclopedic writing.  The focus should be on Bubbles - not Jackson.  It is immaterial to an article about Bubbles what caused Jackson's death. Jackson's biography should not be rewritten here. It is enough to say Jackson died in 2009. And Bubbles did not stay "home". Bubbles was in the Florida sanctuary when Jackson died. Jackson had dumped him and the chimp was out of his life and living on charitable donations. The idea that Jackson may have left money to Bubbles is ridiculous and unsupported. He dumped Bubbles and had few second thoughts about him. There is some sort of subtle suggestion here that the reader will have to wait until Jackson's estate is settled to find out. This is tabloid writing. Jackson could not have cared less about Bubbles at this point and suggestions in the article that he did are supported only by mischievous, mocking news reports.  The article is about Bubbles - not Jackson. You apparently cannot see this. You believe that every single word you've written is "relevant". This is not so and you stubbornly refuse to accept this. Much of the media quotes and reports you supply are just mischievous mockery. Not every tidbit about Jackson and Bubbles needs to be recorded in an encyclopedia article with the belief that this is "comprehensiveness". It's not. It's simply being indiscriminate. Your expectation that this article is going to achieve FA with a little copyedit here and a little tweak there is delusion. Any editor will tell you this article needs extensive revision. You simply will not accept this and expect that being stubborn and holding out until reviewers get tired of the whole thing will win you FA. It won't. FAC has tightened up its standards recently because a lot of junk was getting passed to FA so you should expect very, very critical eyes turned upon this article. Being resistant to advice from experienced editors and stubbornly insisting upon having everything your way is not going to get you the coveted FA gold star. Relax, be cooperative, and let others advise you on this article. SoniaSyle (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These problem sentences that you highlighted can and will be fixed. But there is no need to hack away at the article without any consensus, leaving all of the context out. It needs this for a full understanding of the subject. You'd rather it was chopped to pieces to suit your own of POV of Jackson being a junkie madman who dumped the chimpanzee on a whim. It is clear you are here to push an agenda. This is unacceptable. As I have said already, this is a de facto subarticle for Michael Jackson, and naturally should include some contextual material regarding him and his role with Bubbles. Also, I have no plans of ever taking this to FAC.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What context? What understanding? What is there to understand? Whatever it is, it's not very clear. Bubbles was a pet that Jackson abused by dragging him around to drug-fueled recording sessions and pill-popping promotional parties and God knows what else. Is this the best life for a chimp? Or is this abuse? Shouldn't Bubbles have been in a warm, quiet, and safe place? What good was in this life for Bubbles? Can you explain that? Anyway, what is one supposed to "understand" here? The article has no "point" because the focus is diffuse. The focus is split between Jackson's life and Bubbles. The article is supposed to be about Bubbles not Jackson. You don't seem to understand or accept this. For me, this acticle indicates Jackson adopted Bubbles for one reason: to practice being a "daddy" before going the surrogate mother route and bringing his own offspring into the world. Jackson was testing the waters and wondering if he could really stomach changing a baby's diapers. Next, I understand from the article that the poor creature was exploited for Jackson publicity purposes and to establish the singer as a weirdo. That's what I "understand" from this article. I suggest you decide for yourself what this article is supposed to be about. For me, it's should be about Bubbles. Apparently you think differently. Jackson and Bubble sdidn't have a "relationship" so don't go there. Try to find out WHY Jackson adopted this animal and start there. Write a biography of Bubbles - with little or no mention of Jackson - and see what develops. Something like this: "Bubbles was born in a Texas research facility and adopted by Michael Jackson in the early 1980s. He was kept in the Jackson Encino home before being moved to Neverland Ranch. There he ate at the dining room table, slept in a crib, and used the Jackson toilet. He was taken to a recording session, a film shoot, a promotional party, and on the Bad World Tour. In 2003, he was sent to a California animal sanctuary and in 2004 to a Florida sanctuary where he now survives on public donations. Bubbles inspired a stuffed toy, a porcelain sculpture, and a spoof memoir" then flesh it out with detail without going overboard. The biograpy should be about Bubbles, not Jackson.   SoniaSyle (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Bubbles' notabilty rests solely on his relationship with Jackson, so I'll move the title to Michael Jackson and Bubbles to clear up any misunderstanding regarding the scope of the article.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a vaudeville act: "Ladies and gentleman! We now present -- recently returned from performances in Japan -- Michael Jackson and his chimpanzee Bubbles!" To make this article work you need to find out WHY Jackson "adopted" Bubbles. Ask yourself: "WHY would a multimillionaire like MJ adopt a chimpanzee, then dump him in a shelter to live on charitable donations for the rest of his life?" Jackson had millions. Couldn't he spare a bit for the animal's upkeep? Of course, he couldn't! He was too selfish. His whole life was one of intense, incredible, unremitting selfishness.  It'd obvious to me he adopted Bubs to selfishly practice being a "daddy" and to establish his unique weirdness. There could be other reasons and you should find them. But the WHY hasn't been answered in this article. All that's addressed here is the WHAT: "Michael Jackson adopted a chimp. Michael Jackson took the chimp to Japan. Michael Jackson allowed the chimp to use his toilet. Michael Jackson dumped the chimp in a shelter. Michael Jackson did this and that blahblahblah". There's no context here necessary to understanding anything. There's nothing to understand.  See what I mean? Just the WHAT not the WHY.  SoniaSyle (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to start discussing major changes before making them, SoniaSyle. The wording of this article was reached through consensus by editors at various review and talk pages. Furthermore, some of your phrasings are not adhering to a neutral point of view (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia) and are introducing original research. Several of your edits and suggestions for this article have been welcomed and implemented. However, you cannot overhaul all of the article to suit your own views.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 09:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both of you (Pyrrhus & SoniaStyle) have points worth discussing, but I haven't read all of the discussion yet and can't therefore say anything in general to help the structure of the article. However, I can't agree with the title change to Michael Jackson and Bubbles. I find it very strange to cover the relationship between them as a duette instead of the chimpanzee itself. Wazzgulf (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bubbles is an animal not a human
Please treat Bubbles and the other chimps in Jackson's possession as animals in this article. They are not humans and they do not have choices. For example, the chimps did not ASSIST Jackson with the housekeeping. This suggests the animals had a choice. They didn't. First, they had to have been taught to dust and clean the windows. This is not something chimps do naturally nor something they would choose to do. It is important to keep these creatures as animals and not to confuse the reader by suggesting they are 'sort of' humans. Please keep this distinction in mind. Jackson and his entourage may have perceived these animals as humans or quasi-humans but these perceptions should not be coloring this article. Animals are animals. SoniaSyle (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop this agenda pushing, SoniaSyle. The source does not say that the chimpanzees were made to clean. You are trying to make out that they were being used as slaves; we're not dumb here. Adding that the chimpanzees were made to clean constitutes original research. Even if they were taught to clean, they were assisting, knowingly or unknowingly. If a dog is taught to fetch a newspaper for its master, it assists its owner. It does not matter if the animal knows it is being helpful or not. The act of the chimpanzees cleaning assisted. You are deliberately rewording sections to suit your own views of Jackson as an evil individual. Saying that Bubbles was "no longer wanted or needed" by Jackson when the animal matured is incorrect. Jackson did not want the animal to go, but it had become viscious and had to be removed in case it mauled his children. This is made clear in the sources. You are trying to convey that Jackson thought, "Oh, well, he's getting old and boring, so we'll just dump him". Also, why is the fact that the trial involved child-sex claims relevant? As I pointed out, the trial dealt with other allegations as well. Stop trying to push this anti-Jackson agenda. This page was put together through discussion from several editors. You cannot just come and overhaul it to suit your own views, as you have been told several times.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing an agenda. A dog that fetches a newspaper is trained to do so and made to do so upon command. The dog has no choice. Fetching a newspaper is not normal, natural canine behavior. Cleaning a celebrity's house is not normal, natural chimp behavior. The chimps can only have been trained and 'made' to do the housecleaning because a chimp cannot make a choice about housecleaning. I'm sure Jackson was very nice about having the chimps clean house (he didn't beat them with a stick, for example) but the fact remains that they were 'made' to do the cleaning. 'Assisted' is your interpretation of the source material and suggests the chimps were quasi-human capable of making choices. This is Wikipedia. Every effort should be made to present the material from a normal human perspective. The chimps were trained and made to do the housecleaning. Any normal person can see this. The "child-sex trial" term is taken from the source. We record what the source states. It's context for the reader.  SoniaSyle (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what the source says, and we should be trying to make the article sound less like what the publication says, as we start getting into copyright violation territory. As I have already pointed out, the trial was not just about the CSA allegations. We should not be giving those charges undue weight over the rest. "At the 2005 People v. Jackson trial, the singer revealed to jurors..." is fine. We don't need the irrelevant detail. The wikilink serves as the navigational tool for those who want a full understanding of the trial. You know this, but are trying to squeeze in any negativity relating to Jackson that you can. Again, use the talk page before making potentially controversial changes to an article thats wording has been carefully reached through extensive discussions.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Death of Jackson" section
"It has not been revealed whether Jackson left money to support Bubbles, whose care, to date, has been paid for by public donations."

According to the Center For Great Apes website, "After his death, Michael Jackson's Estate has continued to support the annual care costs for Bubbles at the sanctuary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.195.222 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, added. Popcornduff (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Bubbles → Bubbles (chimpanzee) – (moving back over the redirect) This was moved without discussion to the current awkward title Michael Jackson and Bubbles. But it's pretty clear that the article is about Bubbles and not about a human/chimpanzee duo. The article starts with
 * Bubbles (born 1983) is a common chimpanzee

and not
 * The relationship between entertainer Michael Jackson and chimpanzee Bubbles dates back to...

or
 * Michael Jackson and Bubbles are a man and chimpanzee pair who....

The article is also categorized in animal categories. Obviously, the bulk of the article is dedicated to Bubbles relationship with Michael Jackson since it's the only thing that makes him famous but the primary subject is a chimp. Pichpich (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The article is primarily about the chimpanzee. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The naming structure is appropriate too. Jack (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppport The proposed name is more in line with the way we title articles about animals. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Extra note: if the article is moved (as seems likely) it would make sense to move Michael Jackson and Bubbles (work of art) to Michael Jackson and Bubbles (at least once we've taken care of incoming links). Pichpich (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a bit trivial, but I've moved that page to Michael Jackson and Bubbles (sculpture) in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.