Talk:KSI

He is a comedian.

The dude got famous from doing rape faces, why is he not labeled as a comedian? He also admitted himself that he is a comedian in one of Deji's videos. Please add that he is a comedian aswell. Thank you. Intellectual32 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

In the third line, it says "He is a member and co-founder of the British YouTube group known as the Sidemen, which has a combined audience of over 53 million subscribers." That 53 million number count is way outdated. Its over 94 million like its stated on Sidemen page. So someone replace the 53 million with 94.6 million and Social Blade should be used as a source.

Doublz (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: As I said, use Social Blade as a source. Its a sum total of their subscribers, use WP:BUNDLING for bundling citations like its done on Sidemen. So it should be like this -

"He is a member and co-founder of the British YouTube group known as the Sidemen, which has a combined audience of over 94 million subscribers."

The third citation lists all their subscribers which totals to 94.6 million which is their current combined subscriber count. Right now it shows 53 million as their combined subscriber count on this article which is outdated. It has been updated on Sidemen but not here. So someone do that. -Doublz (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but sock puppets don't get to edit this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

wrong number for total subscribers

i just wanted to say KSI's two channels combined have 29.55 million subscribers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potato69x420 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding removal of sourced info

The first line "Olajide Olayinka Williams "JJ" Olatunji, better known as KSI, is an English YouTuber, internet personality, rapper, actor and professional boxer" was changed to "Olajide Olayinka Williams "JJ" Olatunji, better known as KSI, is an English YouTuber and rapper" by Formulaonewiki even though both the citations added to the sentence very clearly mention him as an actor and a boxer as well. Formulaonewiki is also repeatedly removing the The Times source and still hasn't given any reason for its removal. My argument is that every reliable source that has written an in-depth article on KSI within the past year has mentioned him as a YouTuber, rapper, actor and a boxer. The Independent and The Times stating him as "YouTuber, rapper, actor and boxer" alone should be more than enough to justify the fact that "actor and boxer" should be included since both of them are regarded as highly reliable sources.

Secondly, the line "ranking as the third-most subscribed music channel in the UK, and placing him among the top 30 most subscribed music artists on the platform" was removed and replaced with "ranking as the sixth-most subscribed and nineteenth-most viewed channel from the United Kingdom, and placing him among the top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform" by Formulaonewiki. In my opinion, the former should be mentioned because KSI being the third most subscribed music channel in the UK has been covered in several reliable sources and is important information (along with him being among top 30 most subscribed artists that has a whole wiki page on it with KSI being listed) because Youtube converted KSI's main channel to "official artist channel" recently (you can see the artist badge beside his name on his main youtube channel), it is officially an artist channel now so his music rank is worth mentioning considering it has been covered in several reliable sources, I don't see a valid reason for its removal. Whereas him being "nineteenth-most viewed channel from the United Kingdom, and placing him among the top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform" hasn't been covered in a single reliable source whatsoever, it has only been covered in one primary source which is social blade. Plus, there are hundreds of wikipedia articles on YouTubers and barely any of them mention "placing him among the top 100/top500 most subscribed channels on the platform" and there's a good reason for that, because this information is literally only covered in one primary source and not a single reliable source. Pewdiepie is the only major exception because his ranking is actually notable and has actually been covered in several reliable sources. I know primary source info can be included in the article, I just don't see why an info that is only covered in a primary source justifies replacing info that is notable and has been covered in several reliable sources and is actually important because like I said, its a music channel now.

Refs.

• References

Any opinions on these two edits would be really helpful.—Sxkc (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the boxing aspect; he is technically a professional boxer, and sources do state this, but in reality he's a semi-professional celebrity boxer. He's not taking it up as a career and will never fight a legitimate professional. Freddie Flintoff had one licensed bout, with an actual professional, and isn't listed as such. The countless celebrities that have fought in Sport Relief celebrity matchups under amateur rules aren’t listed as amateur boxers. People that boxed in their youth as amateur boxers aren't listed as former amateur boxers. To me it feels like an unnecessary addition to puff up his CV, while also being utterly laughable considering the circumstances. He was literally forced to turn professional by Eddie Hearn in order for the fight to be televised. But, unfortunately, that's just my opinion and the WP:RS policy will surely be rammed down my throat lol – ².O.^Boxing 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The examples you gave and this case has a major difference, and I'm sure you know it already, which is major reliable sources backing up the said info here. The amount of coverage that his one professional fight and his two amateur fights have in reliable sources, also stating him as a 'professional boxer', is more than enough for the 'boxer' word to be included in the first line, especially when the coverage from that avenue is more than his 'rapping' which is already included in the first line. If the word 'professional' is the issue here, we can just use 'boxer' instead of 'professional boxer' if other editors also oppose referring to him as 'professional boxer’ even though he technically IS a professional boxer and reliable sources also state that he is. —Sxkc (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sxkc: sorry, you’re reply must have gotten lost in my watchlist. I wouldn’t be opposed to just boxer being listed. – ².O.^Boxing 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be good with adding just boxer as well. - Brojam (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam:@Squared.Circle.Boxing: So you guys agree with the first edit provided the word 'professional' is not used before boxer, I'm perfectly fine with that. What do you think about the second edit discussion (second paragraph) ?—Sxkc (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sxkc: Would you mind providing the reliable sources mentioning this fact. I definitely think we should have it mentioned somewhere in the article supported by reliable sources, but not sure if it should go in the lead over what we currently have. I get that he recently changed his account to an artist, but the huge majority of his views and subs was not for music. I also haven't seen other artists on this list highlight this fact in their leads. But, I agree that "and placing him among the top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform" should be removed. He's actually not even in the top 130 anymore and like you mentioned I hardly see this on other Youtubers pages; they usually stick with the country-based YouTube rankings. - Brojam (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: Assuming you're referring to "KSI being the third most subscribed music channel in the UK", the most reliable sources mentioning that info are The Face (magazine), MTV, Yahoo! News and Esquire. The most recent reliable source mentioning that is The Face (magazine), its an interview with KSI & they literally state that in the sub-heading (here). And yes, I too agree that the statement "and placing him among the top 130 most subscribed channels on the platform" should be removed. I’m surprised the statement wasn’t removed by anyone before this. Not only are there barely any other YouTuber pages showing the worldwide channel rankings like you said but being “among the top 130” of anything is useless to mention especially when it hasn’t been covered in a single reliable source, you don’t see any wikipedia article of a musician stating “ranking as the 130th highest selling artist” or a wikipedia article of an author stating “ranking as the 127th highest selling writer” etc. If he was no.1 then sure but from 1 to 130 is such a huge gap that its just unnecessary & odd to mention especially when its not covered in any reliable source. Do you think it should be removed with nothing replacing it or should it be replaced by him being the third most subscribed music channel in the UK like I originally said ? I'm ok if you think it should be removed with nothing replacing it but then where else are you going to mention him being the third most subscribed music channel since you said that we should have it mentioned somewhere else. There's no other suitable place other than lead to mention it, even in the source it mentions that info at the very top. —Sxkc (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do any of those mention the top 30 artist channel stat so that we can link the corresponding Wiki list? Also, could you add the weblinks for the other three publications that you mentioned. - Brojam (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: Here are all the links - here (...it is the third most-followed music channel in the UK...), here (With the third-most followed music channel in the UK.....) and here (... the third most-followed music channel....). As for the top 30 most subbed artists, there is a whole wikipedia page on it so its most certainly notable, it has been covered in few articles but that was before KSI was in that top 30, right now other than that wikipedia page, it only mentions that in places like KSI's bio on Google Music, Last.fm, BBC Music, Genius etc. like this. —Sxkc (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So looking at the Wikipedia list, it's very badly sourced (ie no source actually having a list) and with no source saying KSI is in the top 30 I don't think we should include it. (P.S. that Google Play site is just using the previous lead from Wikipedia) So I would recommend something like: As of May 2020, his channel has received over 21 million subscribers and over 5 billion video views, ranking as the sixth most-subscribed and twentieth most-viewed channel on the platform from the United Kingdom. KSI is the third most-subscribed British artist on YouTube Music. - Brojam (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: Yeah, I'm down to not include the top 30 either. However, I don't agree with the sixth most-subscribed and twentieth most-viewed channel because just like the top 30, that's not mentioned in a single reliable source either. I think it should be like Markiplier & DanTDM and just end the statement on subscriber counts and view count. DanTDM is on that exact same list, he's in fact the only YouTuber in UK that has more subscribers than KSI since the rest 4 are music/vevo channels & yet its nowhere mentioned in his article that he's the third most subscribed channel in the UK because that hasn’t been covered in any reliable sources, same thing here. As for the YouTube Music statement, yes we can add that with any of the above reliable publications with it as citation, I would be fine with that.

I think what we should make it: As of May 2020, the channel has received over 21 million subscribers and over 5 billion video views. In 2019, he was ranked as the second most influential online creator in the United Kingdom by The Times. He is also the third most-subscribed British artist on YouTube Music.. Would you be ok with that ? The reason why I think the The Times should be included is because him being stated as the second most influential online creator by The Times is mentioned nowhere in the article even though its a pretty big deal (here are the weblinks if you wanna check - The Times, Independent). Mini Ladd was ranked third (just below KSI) and The Times thing has been stated in the top three lines of his article.—Sxkc (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)