Talk:CACI

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Jan 2 Court Allows Suit Against Air America  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] Hrothgar 17:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation REALLY needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: As there has been no feedback to my last inquiry, I believe I can safely assume this "dispute" has been resolved and this disclaimer should be removed. I respectfully submit a last call for comments -- thank you. Pubspecialist (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Pubspecialist signing in as Pubspecialist2 (password snafu). Per my note below, I am now deleting the disclaimer. Thanks to all. Pubspecialist2 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Abu Ghraib controversy 

message: CACI isn't a special interest of mine, so only today did I notice that these changes had been made.  I can see that Pubspecialist2 posted here that this is "a last call for comments", but I don't see an RFC.  Based on earlier comments above, was the now-removed NPOV tag referring to accusations of abuses in the Iraq war?  
I agree with Pubspecialist2 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.  The controversial 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 a neutral point of view.  May I make some suggestions for improvement for those familiar with this dispute?
* use credible third-party sources
* incorporate recent findings
* focus on the most crucial aspects of the subject, avoiding undue weight on the whole issue or any particular side in the dispute
* several in-line tags help identify problematic statements (more here), such as:
**
**
**
**
I have restored the Abu Ghraib section with its own localized NPOV tag.  ——Rich jj (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring 

message: The entire Abu Ghraib section was deleted 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)
thread_title:  Deleted again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted again, again 

message: Someone at CACI ("Marketing Writer"?)is obviously working very hard to make 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)
thread_title:  Deleted/Restored 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: Marketing Writer (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on CACI. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20121110080254/http://caci.co.uk/331.aspx to http://www.caci.co.uk/331.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110080337/http://caci.co.uk/433.aspx to http://www.caci.co.uk/433.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710105753/http://www.caci.com/iraq_faqs.shtml to http://www.caci.com/iraq_faqs.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120072035/http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/caci_opinion.pdf to http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/caci_opinion.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 at http://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 at http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/list/filtered?searchByName=caci.
In the infobox, propose updating financial figures based on CACI's FY17 earnings release at http://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)
thread_title:  Request edit on 7 February 2018 

message: The information on Fortune 1000 largest companies was declined, per WP:PEACOCK. Everything else was implemented. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: 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 ...  Maxime Vernier (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, rounding to the nearest thousand is fine. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 13 February 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updates to Acquisitions Section 

message: 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  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CACIScribbler (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New HQ location 

message: To add to this article: mention of Antonio 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.html 98.123.38.211 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to article