Talk:CACI
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCACI article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly thoserepresenting the subject of the article, arestrongly advised not to directly edit the article. SeeWikipedia:Conflict of interest. You mayrequest corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, orcontact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | TheWikimedia Foundation'sTerms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; seeWP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, seeWP:COIRESPONSE.
|
The "Culture" paragraph reads like from a company pamphlet. especially the fist senteence "CACI is known for its culture of good character and ethics, built on the principles of honesty, integrity, commitment, and respect." later in the article you learn about the involvement in torture and human rights abuses. I'd call this a bit schizophrenic to say the least.--Panoramedia (talk)08:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article appears to be based entirely from a single source, which is apparently an anti-CACI piece. The whole article smacks of advocacy. Can additional sources be provided?
Whats the deal with the last revision deleting the revolving door paragraph? I reverted and put it back on.Maybe somebody diddnt like what they saw.... *dons tin foil hat* Woooooo!
Tardicus14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all the puff-pieces. Don't put them back unless they can be qualified as informational only.
--Farnishk (talk)14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jan 2 Court Allows Suit Against Air America[1] CACI is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. An Air America spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit. The suit stemmed from comments Rhodes made Aug. 25-26, 2005 on her radio show. According to CACI's complaint, she accused CACI employees of raping and murdering Iraqi civilians at Abu Ghraib prison, claims that CACI said were "false and defamatory." ... If Randi was using Wiki as a citation...that's a problem: see last paragraph: Some of the company's contractors working within the occupation of Iraq were identified as being involved in the commission of acts of torture and abuse in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.[citation needed]Hrothgar17:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This material is reorganized from the beginning of the talk page so it falls in a chronological section and allows for discussion. ——Rich jj (talk)17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no comments on the CACI page in more than 2 years. Except for the section on CACI's business in Iraq, all other information is factually gleaned from CACI's webpage. Can we remove the NPOV disclaimer now?Pubspecialist (talk)21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Pubspecialist[reply]
CACI isn't a special interest of mine, so only today did I notice that these changes had been made. I can see thatPubspecialist2 posted here that this is "a last call for comments", but I don't see anRFC. Based on earlier comments above, was the now-removed NPOV tag referring to accusations of abuses in the Iraq war?
I agree withPubspecialist2 that some facts may be properly gleaned from CACI's webpage, but we have to be careful that the article doesn't resemble a CACI public affairs press release. Thecontroversial material was recently removed wholesale, and now there's no mention that any such controversies or accusations existed. Now the article's only real source is CACI's own website. The Abu Ghraib section may have actually been "partisan and one-sided," as has been claimed, but sanitizing the article is no better. Instead that material should be improved to present aneutral point of view. May I make some suggestions for improvement for those familiar with this dispute?
I have restored the Abu Ghraib section with its own localized NPOV tag. ——Rich jj (talk)17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Abu Ghraib section wasdeleted wholesale yet again, with only an edit comment claiming it to be "one-sided and factually weak" and "poorly sourced". It didn't seem terribly POV to me and decently sourced (Foreign Affairs magazine, court papers, BBC, Washington Post, NewsMax, CorpWatch, and CACI's own website), especially compared to the rest of the entire article (only 4 references citing CACI's website and something called "Compuserve Online Today").
If you still feel strongly that the best sourced portion of the article is biased, please fix or flag the problematic statements as I explained earlier. What's left is looking like a sanitized public affairs piece. ——Rich jj (talk)17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again,the entire Abu Ghraib section was deleted with only a tenuous edit comment for justification: "deleted out-of-date and poorly sourced material". If this really is out of date, then why not clean it up and explain what has happened since, giving due weight to the most credible accepted facts on the case as we know them today. Perhaps you feel there is too much coverage of this Abu Ghraib issue since this is a blemish on a company with a longer history and larger dealings. But it still appears to be a very notable blemish.
As stated above on the times this happened in the past, this material cites credible sources, covering a controversial matter that was well-reported in the press. Continually scrubbing all controversy only hurts the credibility of this article, and the credibility of Wikipedia in general. When everything is all smiles and sunshine you must ask yourself what isn't being said. ——Rich jj (talk)14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone at CACI ("Marketing Writer"?)is obviously working very hard tomake sure the Abu Ghraib section is removed. I restored the entire section (nearly 8500 words) last week. I suggest a complete scrub of the obviously subjective writing ("CACI is known for its culture of good character and ethics") and perhaps locking the page to prevent any futher "improvements," especially now that the lawsuit's dismissal was successfully appealed.Kchurch05 (talk)17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the page now as well-balanced and representing a world-wide view. I suggest the complaint be removed from the article unless specific missing material can be identified, i.e., specify what needs to be added to make it "world-wide."Paraphysical (talk)18:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the material about being a veteran friendly company down much lower under "Culture" rather than in the introduction. To me with this change it no longer reads like an advertisement. I suggest we remove the tag about this from the page.Paraphysical (talk)19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing Writer (talk)17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: CACI would like to avoid, if possible, the disambiguation language at the top of the CACI article (For the counternarcotics initiative, see Central Asia Counternarcotics Initiative. For the think tank, see Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.). Would renaming/moving the article be a viable and/or recommended solution? Are there any other actions that can be taken?
Add new section (under History): Operations
CACI has 11 market areas.[1]
Add new section (under Operations): Awards and Recognition
References
Marketing Writer (talk)17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been directly edited a great deal by the PR person for the company. Needs careful review, and especially looking for independent sourcing.Jytdog (talk)15:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links onCACI. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thisedit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
CACI International Inc is ... - Propose removing comma after name; it is ungrammatical and CACI uses no punctuation in its legal name.
CACI has approximately 19,000 employees worldwide.[1] - Propose changing employee number to 18,700, as in CACI's latest earnings announcement athttp://investor.caci.com/file/Index?KeyFile=391988683. CACI updates its employee number in each quarter's earnings release.
CACI is a member of the Fortune 1000 Largest Companies, the Russell 2000 index, and the S&P SmallCap 600 Index.[1] Propose replacing with: CACI is a World's Most Admired Company and a member of the Fortune 1000 Largest Companies, the Russell 2000 index, and the S&P SmallCap 600 Index. This is sourced from Fortune itself athttp://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list/filtered?searchByName=caci.
In the infobox, propose updating financial figures based on CACI's FY17 earnings release athttp://investor.caci.com/file/Index?KeyFile=389943968:
Revenue
US$3.7 billion (2016)[2] - Propose changing to $4.35 billion and changing date to 2017
Operating income
US$264.8 million (2016)[2]- Propose changing to $297.3 million and changing date to 2017
Net income
US$142.8 million (2016)[2] - Propose changing to $163.7 million and changing date to 2017
Number of employees~19,000[1] - Propose changing to 18,700 using same source and reason above (http://investor.caci.com/file/Index?KeyFile=391988683).
Under External Links:
https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/caci - Propose deleting this. No rationale has been provided to include a snippet of CACI's earnings release conference call with investors that is not relevant to any other information in the article.PubSpecialist (talk)16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partially implemented. The information on Fortune 1000 largest companies was declined, perWP:PEACOCK. Everything else was implemented.Spintendo ᔦᔭ01:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for approving the edits to the infobox. Unfortunately, the employee number in the body of the article still references the 19,000 employee vs. the correct 18,700 number in the infobox. Request we also make this change as well as removing the comma after the company name, per Feb 7 request. So:
Line 1: CACI International Inc, is an American multinational professional services and information technology company ... Propose changing to: CACI International Inc is an American multinational professional services and information technology company ...
DoneMaxime Vernier (talk)16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Line 4: CACI has approximately 19,000 employees worldwide. Propose changing to: CACI has approximately 18,700 employees worldwide. DoneMaxime Vernier (talk)16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PubSpecialist (talk)18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Morning/Afternoon all-
Doing some updates on other projects, and noticed that there are some additional CACI acquisitions that could be added to the "acquisitions" section of the CACI page. I'd like to submit them for consideration. They are:
2019: Linndustries Shielding Specialties (electromagnetic pulse shielding and hardening)
Source:https://www.govconwire.com/2019/10/caci-acquires-three-mission-tech-companies/
2019: Deep3 (CACI Ltd.)
Source:https://www.govconwire.com/2019/10/caci-acquires-three-mission-tech-companies/
2020: Ascent Vision Technologies (AVT)
Source:https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/caci-international-acquires-mont-based-aerospace-company/
Best,CACIScribbler (talk)15:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All -
As of May 2021, CACI's Corporate headquarters has moved to Reston, VA - Fairfax County, VA - at 12021 Sunset Hills Road, Reston, VA.
Recent investor relations releases note the change in their announcements on Business Wire, such as here:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210518005892/en/CACI-International-Inc-to-Participate-in-Jefferies-Virtual-IT-Services-Summit— Precedingunsigned comment added byCACIScribbler (talk •contribs)20:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this article: mention ofAntonio Taguba's 2024 testimony about CACI. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/16/abu-ghraib-trial-civilian-taguba-caci/77cc7296-fc2f-11ee-87ac-20f7e67cbe29_story.html98.123.38.211 (talk)06:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipedia editors! I propose updating the CACI page content to replace CACI sources with external sources and to update the material to be more current. The working draft is here:Draft:CACI International. Many thanks!Mx-STEM-editor (talk)16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
In the “Acquisitions” section, CACI sources are used. Because Wikipedia articles should useindependent sources, updated third-party references are suggested. Only the first 10 listed acquisitions have been added here to discuss the change and to keep the suggested revision to a more manageable size. If consensus approves, will submit a new Edit Request for the remaining updated independent references.
2003: Premier Technology Group, Inc. Change reference from[1] to[2].
2004: MTL Systems, Inc. Change reference from[3] to[4].
2004: CMS Information Services, Inc. Change reference from[5] to[6].
2004:American Management Systems, Inc. (Defense and Intelligence Group). Change reference from[7] to[8]. Add internal Wikipedia link to "American Management Systems, Inc."
2005: National Security Research, Inc. Change reference from[9] to[10].
2006: Information Systems Support, Inc. Change reference from[11] to[12].
2007: Institute for Quality Management, Inc. Change reference from[13] to[14].
2007: The Wexford Group International. Change reference from[15] to[16].
2007: Athena Innovative Solutions, Inc. Change reference from[17] to[18].
2007: Areté Software Ltd (CACI Ltd.). Change reference from[19] to[20].
It should be changed to replace the company's sources with independent sources, so the article is more objective and to help ensure aneutral point of view. Also, some acquisitions are missing references.
Included above in the "what I think should be changed" section with each respective acquisition.
Mx-STEM-editor (talk)16:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead from me.References
