Talk:CACI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV[edit]

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)

NPOV[edit]

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!

Tardicus 14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


well...i work here and i can tell you it's the truth :)
psuhellcat 16:02, 09 February 2006


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)

I agree that encyclopedic treatment of CACI doesn't need an extensive listing of every obscure industry ranking, a catalog of commercial offerings, or a list of its CEO's honors. Since the convention is to exclude professional titles from inline text, it was a little funny to read "Executive Chairman Dr. Jack London's honors include ...", reminding me of laudatory titles often pronounced upon autocratic strongmen. I imagined "The Most Excellent Grand Chancellor" and chuckled a little. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation REALLY needed[edit]

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] Hrothgar 17:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Abu Ghraib controversy[edit]

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)

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

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)Pubspecialist
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)Pubspecialist

Restoring[edit]

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?

I have restored the Abu Ghraib section with its own localized NPOV tag. ——Rich jj (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again[edit]

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)

Deleted again, again[edit]

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)

Deleted/Restored[edit]

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)

Worldwide view[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)


Proposed Additions[edit]

Marketing Writer (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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]

  • Business Systems
  • Command and Control
  • Communications
  • Cyber Security
  • Enterprise IT
  • Health
  • Intelligence Services
  • Intelligence Systems and Support
  • Investigation and Litigation Support
  • Logistics and Material Readiness
  • Surveillance and Reconnaissance

Add new section (under Operations): Awards and Recognition

  • Military Times Best for Vets Employer[2]
  • RecruitMilitary 2017 Most Valuable Employers (MVE) for Military[3]
  • FlexJobs.com 2017 Top 100 Companies with Remote Jobs[4]
  • Flexjobs.com 20 Companies Offering the Most Full-Time Remote Jobs[5]
  • CEO Ken Asbury Named to 2017 Wash100[6]
  • Darrin Washington named to 2017 FederalHealthIT 100[7]
  • Top 60 Workplaces in Memphis[8]
  • Military Friendly Employer silver award recipient[9]
  • Top Mid-sized Workplace by Austin American-Statesman[10]

References

Marketing Writer (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs review[edit]

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)