Talk:VidAngel

Location
This Wikipedia article current reads that the current headquarters is in Palo Alto, CA however it appears to still be in Provo, UT? Can anyone confirm? Jooojay (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources, synthesis of material
I've reverted your edit again because it doesn't comply to wiki standards. This is a court document and thus a primary source. These articles don't mention VidAngel, so they're here used to synthesize information. If you can find reliable secondary sources, feel free to add them to the article. FallingGravity 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The edits clearly break WP:SYNTH. Instaurare (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The cite is a court ruling, as such it is not a primary source. The court documents from the respective parties could be considered primary sources, but a court ruling is based on analysis of the primary sources submitted by the parties. This particular cite is an appeals court ruling, which makes it even more of a secondary source because it is providing its own independent analysis of a lower court ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty cat Micro Chat (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A court ruling is, by definition, a court document. If this particular factoid is important, than other sources should pick it up. I've added a tag to request a secondary source, and have removed all WP:SYNTH material. FallingGravity 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Broken link
The link https://www.vidangel.com/news/2016/10/19/is-vidangel-legal-2/ in the references does not work anymore. It just redirects to the home page and does not show the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.99.202 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VidAngel#cite_note-vidangelblog-19 — 2603:9001:20A:EA2D:8DA3:CAEF:579E:9DCE (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

NPV of part of the article
The Operations Legal basis portion of the article appears to be slightly repetitive about the illegal nature of the streaming service. Perhaps slimming down the number of references to the illegality of the service could improve the neutral perspective.

Example portion of article: "According to VidAngel, after they took their (DVD and Blu-ray based) movie-selling live for illegal public consumption—without legal approval from any Hollywood movie studio..."

As a very new user I wanted to post this opinion here to get some feedback before placing a NPV tag on the article itself.

Dullhammoc (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

note or change about the rebrand to angel studios?
h t t p s : / / y o u t u. b e / X C L X n r y J l n 8 ? t = 7 0 2

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/vidangel-rebrands-as-angel-studios-for-crowdfunding-content

https://blog.vidangel.com/2021/04/14/introducing-vidangel-entertainment/

https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2021/3/25/22346625/vidangel-founders-new-angel-studios

https://www.techbuzz.news/vidangel-rebrands-as-angel-studios-refocuses-on-original-content/

https://www.angel.com/watch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:2C4D:8D77:7B8F:C4FF (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Angel Studios is a separate company
VidAngel split into two companies in March 2021. The filtering arm is now VidAngel Entertainment, and the studio arm was rebranded as Angel Studios. Angel Studios should really have its own page, as it is a separate company.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/vidangel-rebrands-as-angel-studios-for-crowdfunding-content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander AS7 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)