Talk:VeriChip

message: In the Privacy section, the article goes off on an unecessary and POV tangent about monitering cell phones, and cameras in New York. What does that have to do with VeriChip?
The rest of the article focuses exclusively on harms of the chips. Presumably someone has said something good about them (like the company) and those arguments should be represented.
Ahalterman 04:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tremendous biases throughout this article 

message: I think wikipedia has a responsibility to display the true implications of the verichip. I think the current information displayed under verichip achieves this well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.100.67 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do too. I mean...we know the pros but we need the cons too in order to really know about the subject. The article explains the benefits as well as the concerns...it is neutral already. If the concerns are taken out it will not be neutral then, don't you agree?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.250 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above, there's no POV in the article.  The flag should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.100.14 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good really, i feel well informed from a un-biased source now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.38.118.188 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True implications 

message: The language in the section "Privacy" seems to be defending the use of the chips, instead of just unbiased reporting of both sides of the argument. See: "Again, this is not true." Jsysinc 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - Privacy Language 

message: 83.132.128.252 did some major edits on this article 2 times and 3 minor edits and made it sound less controversial. You might have to revert back to an older version.80.109.79.136 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that the person who added the above is 89.155.63.6 because he didn't sign. Also, I don't understand what you're talking about because what you wrote about "The Resistance Manifesto" sounds like fundamentalist Christian propaganda to me. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Which proves how unbiased my approach to this matter is.  If it's proper trivia then it should be inserted, which was clearly the case.  What I don't agree with is the fact that the whole article seems to condemn the Verichip on moral grounds.  And I apologize for not signing the comments but I don't really know how to. 83.132.176.132
I just want to say that religious propaganda or not it is still information regarding on how religious groups feel about the VeriChip, I call for a clean up, the religious section should ONLY contain how religious organisations feel towards it no matter where the VeriChip is inserted. The controversy is very real and that *information* should be provided. [[[User:Nullhility|Nullhility]] (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: "Also"?  Did something get removed that I'm missing? Caswin 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Privacy advocates have also..." 

message: HI NUBS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.73.250 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Nubs 

message: In response to below it is not the parent company of verichip is Halo they currently use chips in the hospitals to monitor babies but only on their hospital bracelet and if you like at patents taken out by verichip they have one that corresponds to the notion of implantation of a chip into the brain so that it would be protected by the skull as a baby mature. Why would a company need this patent if they did not wish to use it. Halo represents what a ring around the head and the chip sends out radio rings. You put it together you see their plan!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.196 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What have chips in the brain to do with the Verichip?" 

message: how old do you have to be in order to have a Verichip?
Baconator96 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age limit? 

message: The list of proponents includes an organization "We Will Not Be Chipped", which is not nearly as familiar as Albrecht.  Looking at their site I have a gut feeling that the organization is not genuine.  Many of the subsections on their site are empty or nearly so; their description of hacking a Verichip (as opposed to Wikipedia's links) is several pages of mashed-together text that looks impossible; they compare Verichips to Nazis and mind control and use a Hollerith machine comparison which seems planned to fail if challenged.  Their site encourages everyone to link to it by "Verichipping" their sites with a code that allows the parent site to see who is visiting the target site.  Their T-shirts display "Verichip" very prominently and contribute to brand recognition.  I did not even spot a link to CASPIAN on their site.  Last but not least, what first made me suspicious is a small distinctive detail, which I think it prudent not to specify, which reminds me of the phony "anti-tobacco" campaigns run by cigarette manufacturers.
As a first step, I'm taking them off the list of "opponents" because I don't see them as notable enough to list there (e.g. Yahoo news has no hit for "We will not be chipped"). 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "We Will Not Be Chipped" notable/real? 

message: Proponents
"Some health experts including Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, who sits on the board of directors of VeriChip's parent company Applied Digital Solutions and holds a considerable share of the VeriChip, support the VeriChip as a "useful tool in sharing medical information with health care providers in emergency situations"."
This sentence has a misleading introduction; It states the position to which Thompson held which expresses his credibility, and then sections off his relationship to VeriChip's corporation, completing it with his comment. It sets the tone that though he is the Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, his comments are skewed based on his affiliation with VeriChip. That would be an opinion based speculation and not fact. This sentence credits and discredits him all at once.
The use of the word "some" in the beginning also makes this sentence biased in the view that there are more experts who do not support VeriChip than those who do support. This may be a fact, but you should have some statistic report to verify "some" verses "many" which can be leading words in of them selves.  
Finally the financial investment Thompson does or does not engage in is of no purpose here. The fact he is on the board of directors of a related company can arguably fit since it indirectly pertains to the subject of this article and directly to the section to which it has been placed. His financial endeavors however, whether in this cooperation or not, has no place alongside the subject matter, and does not bring anything to the table that would otherwise be lost if left out. 
The sentence should be rewritten to keep all parts neutral. 
Something to the effect of the fallowing might work well:
"Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with other experts support the VeriChip as a "useful tool in sharing medical information with health care providers in emergency situations". Thompson also sits on the board of directors of VeriChip's parent company Applied Digital Solutions."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.167.208 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading tone  

message: THIS STUPID CHIP WILL CONTROL HUMAN BEINGS! YOU WILL BE CONTROLLED LIKE A ROBOT! ONLY THE PRESTIGIOUS FEW WILL BE ABLE TO GET THIS CHIP! IF YOU DON'T YOU WIL NOT BE ABLE TO BUYS FOOD, DRINK, OWN LAND, PROPERTY, ETC. 
I cut this, couldn't be bothered to sign in to do it. Obvious vandalism (and if serious, not very well informed about the workings of the human nervous system). 194.223.81.88 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal, agreeably misinformed on the nervous system, was more obviously talking about the "deletion" of your ID from the VeriChip database subsequently leading to an unusable chip. That's what I think he/she meant to say. Nullhility (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Removed

message: Under "Religious Concerns" there's this one sentence that doesn't make sense. It says, "It is often surmised that the sixteen digits in the chip stand for the last digits of 666, the original Mark of the Beast." How could a 16 digit number stand for the last digits of "666"? The last digits of 666 are either 66 or 6, which definitely doesn't make 16 digits. Should this really say, "It is often surmised that the last three of the sixteen digits in the chip are 666." or something along those lines?Totakeke423 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement 

message: PLEASE MENTION IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT VERICHIP THAT IT CAN BE USED TO TRACK PEOPLE!! Make no mistake, like it or not, whether you want to be found or not, with this chip they will know where u are at all times.
I know it might be useful in finding people that have been kidnapped or locating wanted criminals, but I do not want the government or anyone for that matter to be able to track my every move. Its bad enough they can do that with cellphones but at least you can toss that. I see this implantable chip as an infringement on my privacy and I hope they dont even think about making this obligatory, so please put this in your article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawkes-v (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These chips can track people, and in time they will become a complete absurdity associated with the breakdown of our civil liberties and natural rights as people. It's true that we can see the benefits of having one of these traceable chips implanted in our arms: we can be rescued from danger very easily, our health conditions can be monitored continuously. But there is a huge price to pay for these conceived notions of safety: our every action and everything we do will be monitored under the watchful eye of an omnipresent corporation. These chips that are surgically implanted into oneself serve as the precursors to the idea of bending and reducing the natural rights and civilian privacy of our people. At least, this all is only my opinion, just see for yourself in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&hl=en. WinterSpw (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: VeriChip Can be used to track its subjects 

message: Couldn't the chip be implanted in the left hand? Or any other part of the body? That way it averts the religious fear of the mark of the beast in the right hand or the forehead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.79.217 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chip in the left hand? 

message: Source #11 does not work  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.70.12 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Added . Hint: Referring to a source as #11 becomes quickly dated. It was the "Rodent Sarcomagenesis" reference from the VeriChip Corp website (currently at #12). HairyWombat 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source #11 

message: The Microchip_implant_(human) page has this section:
Some time between May and July 2010, the Positive ID Corporation [prior known as VeriChip Corporation] discontinued marketing the implantable human microchip.[Ref: ] If this is so, it should be reflected in this article. Tøpholm (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802111839/http://www.healthlinkinfo.com:80/faq/ to http://www.healthlinkinfo.com/faq/#4._Question:_Where_is_the_Health_Link_inserted
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141224104627/http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf to http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025021724/http://www.computerbytesman.com:80/biometrics/verichip.htm to http://www.computerbytesman.com/biometrics/verichip.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified