Talk:Casey Neistat

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 "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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi all, I noticed that Dan Mace is briefly mentioned in the 368 section now, which is great! But given how closely Dan worked with Casey Neistat during the early stages of the 368 project—helping to create over 100 daily vlogs and contributing significantly to the creative output—it might make sense to expand on his role a bit more. There are some great sources that go into more detail about Dan's involvement, like Shots.net and Artlist.io, which highlight how he was a key creative partner during that time. Adding a little more context could help paint a fuller picture of the collaboration and give readers more insight into 368’s development. Just wanted to suggest this as a potential improvement! What do you all think? 2A01:E11:5011:1F0:1DED:36BF:624:8E86 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

As this is Casey Neistat's biography, expanding details about another person's involvement in a project really doesn't fall within the purpose of this article. If and when Dan Mace's article is created, those details would go there. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on your other edits today on wikipedia, they suggest that you may have a conflict of interest, in that you're pushing for information related to Dan Mace be added to articles. There are very strict rules about WP:COI editing. Please review them. Let me be clear though - I'm not suggesting that you have a conflict of interest, only that if there is one, it needs to be disclosed, and the COI rules followed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi All,

I've updated Casey Neistat's image to a very current one. In the new photo, he's wearing sunglasses. Normally I'd think that a more dated image without sunglasses would be preferable, but given the previous image is coming up on nine years old, and sunglasses are a defining part of his public identity, I'd say my newer photo is more immediately recognizable. Still, as this is a potentially objectionable choice, I wanted to write a note on it here. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

In his video Casey Neistat does not discuss the beheading of babies but he does say babies were killed. Using that in a way to obscure the message of his video is prejudicial and undermines an unbiased and accurate portrayal of his point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.157.158 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting the placement of {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} since the section Casey Neistat#Support for Israel falls under WP:ARBPIA-related content. Hopefully I'm not going overboard with this. — 🪫Volatile  📲T | ⌨️C 09:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Also see page history for potentially disruptive content. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 09:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This has been used to weaponize a certain stance. If not fairly used revert this immediately. Instead of locking in yesterdays page version; the version was altered against this policy!!! and then using this to prevent a version revert!!

How are you unbiased if you are making a point of view stand out in a biased fashion. 80.41.134.201 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In his video Casey Neistat does not discuss the beheading of babies but he does say babies were killed. Using that in a way to obscure the message of his video is prejudicial and undermines an unbiased and accurate portrayal of his point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.157.158 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.134.201 (talk)

Casey does not use the word beheaded at 3.44 timestamp. Please show evidence that what he espoused did not happen to the babies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.134.201 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Because of the WP:ECR policy, as this page is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you are unable to edit it. Please propose changes through the edit request procedure. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not edit it, I have been returning the version to the version which was locked in yesterday. This version was locked in yesterday and was edited against this same policy. 80.41.134.201 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The 40 dead babies is the exact claim made in the beheading hoax. It is clearly what he is referring to. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC) IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I've edited the section a bit to try and make it more clear and neutral. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Also added a quote so readers can verify the information easier. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 20:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

If there's further issues or objections, I wouldn't be opposed to raising the issue at the NPOV noticeboard. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 20:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is your proof that what he espoused did not happen to 40 babies. If did not say beheaded then you cannot assume what he is referring to or prove what he espoused did not happen. Unless you have proof (and even with proof) then all your arguments and projections on to his video taint the message of his video and all arguments he makes. Please understand that a major atrocity occurred on Oct 7 with thousands of people being killed (you cannot prove 40 babies were not killed) and you are undermining his message and trying to taint his message that he is trying to portray. 80.42.156.178 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Source 110 from CanadianDimension supports this. "As it became increasingly clear that the story was a hoax, those who had initially believed it protested that it didn’t exactly matter if the babies were beheaded or burned alive, because they had been killed anyways (though this would also end up being proven false, with one baby, not 40, included among lists of those killed that day" IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

there is no hoax about the atrocities of October 7th. My point is that you are obfuscating the entire video by focusing on the babies. The babies are a part of a much wider whole of atrocities committed on Oct 7 that is portrayed as not acceptable. Please accurately characterize the video without finding flaws. Also out of the 1200 people killed on Oct 7th do you expect me to believe only 1 baby was murdered. There would have been at least 40 babies killed and these weird source that probably have no basis are in extremely bad taste. 80.42.156.178 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

see timestamp 2.45 where he talks about other atrocities. In fact there are many time stamps that he talks about atrocities 80.42.156.178 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to discuss his video in this biography it needs to be fairly and accurately portrayed and summarized rather than finding fault and using that to taint him 80.42.156.178 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

no political content is being discussed; the update merely reflects the content in the video and is a reflection of such. What makes your write up more important than everyone else's contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-43262-51 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)