Talk:Casey Neistat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samgrasman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Google collaboration?

I don't believe that Casey ever made a movie specifically for Google as it says in the article. Can someone verify? I think they are referring to this video that he (Casey) shot on Google Glass. Gingakei (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fines

Any information of how much he had to pay for fines and law suites? For example spray painting advertisement posters or printing fake $2 american dollar currency notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.116.33 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

wow

what a fascinatingly detailed biography, complete with so many unverifiable sources! 24.13.81.24 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

it's also interesting that this guy hasn't done anything. it's like a long list of mediocre facts. what is the big deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulanda5 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

-- This is a massive vanity project for someone of very little interest to the general population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.169.14 (talk • contribs)

Picture(s)?

This person needs more pictures for the info box or the article in general. Can anyone find or upload some to add to this article?Adog104 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104

@Adog104: I added a photo released under CC by Neistat to the infobox. I couldn't find any free photos online of him. Mrtea (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mrtea: Thank you buddy. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adog104: Not sure if I'm doing this right, (I'm new to this, if I'm doing it wrong, please instruct me how to do it correctly) but I found some good pictures for Casey, Can someone tell me how to correctly add them to the page?(Amoney93 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Neistat Brothers be merged into Casey Neistat. I do not think this would be too difficult as the most of the information on the Neistat Brothers article is already covered in the Casey Neistat article. Also, very few pages link to the Neistat Brothers article.Sro23 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone concur? It would be a very easy merge and redirect. Sro23 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like most coverage is about Casey. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest merging the content about Casey into this article, but keep Neistat Brothers for content about the HBO series. A quick Google search shows a lot of sources about the show. If Van Neistat meets notability criteria, let him have his own article. Mrtea (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Mrtea. However, I would even go so far as to having 3 pages: one for the HBO series, one for Casey, and the last about all 3 brothers (youngest being dean, an accomplished actor and stuntman). Alternatively, we could keep it like it is and merge the Casey-centric stuff from the series page to his personal page, and then create a new page for Dean (he should meet the criteria, right? I'd say he's more worthy of his own page than Van is). But I think the first option makes more sense. FROZYO! (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe that Casey Neistat's page should be kept as its own single page because his life is based around his youtube channel and his job. The Neistat brothers can be another page because they have a whole other history, and it can be used as links within Casey's biography. Sahilkarnani (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that Mrtea has hit the nail on the head. "The Neistat Brothers" wiki page should be on the HBO series and should be re-created into being a stub about it at first then with further expansion. I am able to edit the "Neistat Brothers" wiki page and turn it into a proper TV show page, but first I have to re-watch the eight episodes and summarise them :) Nicnote (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: You must be kidding - Van Neistat directed all the Tom Sachs movies including "A space program" that premiered at SXSW 2015. He is much more private but not the least bit less important than Casey Neistat. The work that they did together should still be referenced under "The Neistat brothers", although I too agree that the page could equally well be about the TV show rather than the duo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.157.60 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion has swayed me from supporting, I would feel bad if I was him and my work was under the work of my brother, I have watched the Bike Lanes and the iPod dirty secret, so Van deserves some credit right there Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Hello. I agree that the page should be merged here, at least the biographical stuff here. However, could you merge the biographical info here and then move the page as The Neistat Brothers? About a separate page, I think there should be a page for each of the brothers as well, not just a joined article. Thanks. sheldon.andre (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that the Neistat Brothers page has to do with a certain branding that involved another one individual other than Casey Neistat. It is like having an actor and a production company both should have their own pages to frame them in the right perspective --M. Hassan talk here 04:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the Neistat Brothers page should be devoted solely to their HBO series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckPike (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose These should be two separate articles. The Neistat Brothers is worthy of its own page, was a different body of work and a different period of time. Van and Casey Neistat have had separate careers for some time. The Neistat Brothers page shouldn't be merged with this page any more than it should with an article on Van Neistat (which should also exist). Marrante (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like there's only enough information to really support a single article. –Matthew - (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Just make this article about the show on HBO, not about the brothers. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that is a very good idea. Not to be critical, but it is probably a good idea to have a seperate article for the TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onealjack123 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah, it should have a seperate page for the TV show like DuckPike said. OblivionOfficial (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Mrtea wholeheartedly. Otterhead 07:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marketing

Article Smells like well curated marketingStarbwoy (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Starbwoy - Feel free to fix it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

iPod's Dirty Secret "viewcount"

According to this article, "Within six days the video was viewed a million times". The WaPo article that is linked to a few sentences later (original link dead, syndicated copy here at the the Spartanberg Herald-Journal) says "a month later, nearly a million Internet surfers (and counting) had come to know the Neistat Brothers". Where did a million in six days come from? The article only (vaguely) indicates that www.ipods-dirtysecret.com had less than a million visitors in a month.

It was a widespread viral video that I remember seeing myself, but there's absolutely no point in specifying a specific viewcount to a Quicktime video either shared through emails or embedded as a copied file on other video hosting sites.

Danwroy (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Danwroy, your point seems reasonable. Such specificity would need to be properly sourced anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Neistat family.

I think mentioning his grandmother the dancer Louise Cecile Grossman that has inspired him might be crucial in the early life section. I'm also surprised by the lack of mentioning of his parents Barry Neistat and Amy Neistat Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's why this page focuses on Casey mostly. sheldon.andre (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is excellent, just mentioning them once or twice isn't bad Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think more information about Casey's family and his upbringing can be found in his older YouTube videos. He explains a lot about his family and his hometown in the beginning of his vlog channel. I think these can be used as great primary sources. --Siddkumaran (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fan stuff

Should the Boosted section from this article be removed? Going over it, it just seems like something only a WP:FAN would know, and it would be as if adding information about "Neistat's drones" or "Neistat's iPhone's and iPad's" or "The collection of tech in Neistat's studio apartment". Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Arguably the Boosted boards are featured (sometimes extensively) in every single 'episode' and are as such a main part of what he does. But then again it does smell of WP:PLUG for the company. Maybe it doesn't need to be so well featured on this wiki page? Or at least re-written be a bit more encyclopedic... Best, Nicnote (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nicnote; Meh, but edits like this is definitely Fan cruft (does anyone really care how much long-boards a person has?), which is trivial at best. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have no problems with deleting the section or at least re-placing it with a one-liner in somewhere along the lines of "Neistat is seen frequently discussing/using Boosted boards in his vlogs", etc. Nicnote (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nicnote; as long as it's referenced I can respect that. In the mean time, if I have more time, I'll probably be doing some reference add-ons and re-writes of some parts of the article, any help is appreciated. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Video Logs

His filmography fails to mention his video logs which, despite its casual nature, has become an important part of his curriculum vitae. Is there a way to talk about them without having to treat each as a new "great work", since they aren't really that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksawPC (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article style

I normally don't have much to do with writing articles about living persons but I feel that there are a few changes that need to be made here in terms of the style of the article. First off, I think the youtube infobox needs to be changed with a person infobox. Lots of this article isn't even about his youtube channel, and besides, he has done other work like his app company. His active years should also be looked at, in his filmography section it states his part in a film in 2008, plus, the article covers his career all the way back to 2001. So I would think his years active should be "2001–present" or possibly "2008–present". – Hatio93 (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why should we change the infobox from YouTube? That would mean we lose all that information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Articles like Trisha Paytas use infobox person and still hold youtube information. What I am trying to stress here is the fact that his career doesn't fully revolve around youtube but also his filmography, entrepreneurship, and youtube achievements. Information would not – Hatio93 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Paytas the YouTube information is there, but it is embedded in the other infobox. I do accept that Neistat has a career outside of YouTube though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sorry, thats what I was trying to say, having an infobox person, but embedding the youtube infobox into it. I can see how I wasn't very clear on that one. Also, regarding his years active, I don't think it should be "2010–present" the article talks about his career starting in 2001 but his biggest break in his career was probably in 2008 when he produced The Pleasure of Being Robbed. Regarding the using an infobox person and embedding the youtube one, I will make those changes now. – Hatio93 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the infobox. Regarding the years active it might just best to remove so no confusion occurs, what do you think? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be a good idea, but I feel that it is important to be there. Im leaning towards the year 2008. – Hatio93 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I have looked into how other articles have displayed a persons active years. Basically, its the start of their career, in this case, Neistat started his career in 2001, so I have made those changes. – Hatio93 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is not a good enough argument unless based on consensus. Infobox person says Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable. Use the format 1950–2000, or 1970–present if still active (note the use of an en dash, not hyphen). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I would say that this is a given, it doesn't need a consensus. If we are looking at a notability POV then it would be clear that he gained that title in 2003 with his iPod's Dirty Secret film. I do think something better than "2001–present" needs to be thought up. – Hatio93 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the following.

I removed the following "Beme the company in partnership with CNN are now working on a YouTube news channel featuring Casey Neistat as host called Beme News. The Channel is still in trial stages to further refine the quality of the content." The was no source for this, and the next paragraph goes into detail that Neistat and CNN are no longer working with each other. Paige Matheson (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More information on collaboration with other YouTubers

I think a section should be added on his collaboration with other YouTubers. He is a big YouTuber, so more information on him empowering other creators on the platform is important. This information can be found throughout his vlog channel. --Siddkumaran (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Punt

I took a punt at cleaning up the article today - will come back for more shortly assumping that people are happy with my edits. There's a lot of rubbish that is covering up some genuinely interesting narrative.Joe (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Filmography" question

Should Neistat's involvement in YouTube Rewind 2019 be included in a new title called "web" in the "Filmography" section of this article? I feel that full coverage of one's involvement in film should be a priority in this situation. It's only fair, since no one has disputed adding Justin Roiland's involvement in PewDiePie's Meme Review into the Justin Roiland article.

RayDeeUx (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)