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


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)

California Analysis Center, Incorporated[edit]

Officially CACI no longer is an acronym for California Analysis Center, Incorporated so I noted that. 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a great deal of material to this article, and reorganized it by adding subheadings. Several of my additions, although matters of public record, still require addition of references. I have the references at hand, but require additional time to add all of the citations. I have a great deal of personal experience with this firm.

Woofer23 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Woofer23

County Animal Controls of Illinois, Disambiguation page needed[edit]

There is a long list of organizations that go by CACI - just google it. A disambiguation page is needed, but I don't know how to set it up.

Delete the sixth paragraph -- POV[edit]

The sixth paragraph is not non-POV. There are several errors and non-verifiable facts:

  1. "Mercenary" is spelled incorrectly. In addition, "mercenary" in this case is being used as a POV statement. Whether contractors are non-governmental support personnel or mercenaries is debatable.
  2. Where is the evidence that the lack of oversight played a "major" role in human rights abuses? The link is broken for the only "reference" listed; the reference, by its title, has a definitive POV.
  3. No documentation or reference for even the existence of "CIA secret prisons", much less for the quantity of CACI emplyees or other contractors working in known detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. In addition, I am sure that there are indeed "accurate records" of how many contractors do exist (how would contractors get paid for their services otherwise?) but they just are not available to the general public.
  4. I can't find anything on the existence of an "International Court of Human Rights". Do you mean the International Criminal Court or possibly the International Court of Justice?
  5. What is the source of the statement that the use of contractors is one of the "major reason[s]" that the United States won't join the International Court of Human Rights? That they won't join the court because of the employment of CACI or other contract interrogators doesn't make sense. I can think of many other, more relevant reasons that the United States wouldn't join an International Court of Human Rights. 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Slant much?[edit]

Is this meant to provide information about the company or to run its reputation in the ground for the sake of Iraq for Sale. This page has a decided slant to its rhetoric and is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. This is a disgraceful use of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:33, 27 September 2006

perhaps it may be best to note that CACI is currently sing over all the claims made in the movie? wich happen to be the ones made in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:44, 9 March 2007

Citation REALLY needed[edit]

Jan 2 Court Allows Suit Against Air America (web site) 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)

Fluff article[edit]

The formerly informative CACI page has been reduced to fluff and banality.

The company operates in secrecy and has its hand in human rights abuses.

Why it is not relevant that CACI has pled guilty to several federal felonies for comitting fraud on the taxpayers and U.S. Depts. of Justice and Defense -- while never being debarred from further government contracts -- is beyond me.

Congress passed a lw making contractors such as CACI criminally culpable under US law for human rights and other violations committed abroad while in the service of the US Defense Dept. To get around this, CACI's contract with the US gov't for its "services" in Iraq (such as those provided at Abu Ghraib), was signed with the US Dept. of the Interior. Since when does the US have national parks in Iraq?

But CACI's minions will not permnit this information to be published here.

Just as the Senate Armed Services and Intellience Committees won't blow CACI's cover, neither will it ever happen here. The poting oftruthful material about CACI is undermined by those who see the truth a "propaganda" and delete anything negative about the comnpany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woofer23 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 10 April 2007

I'll say-I was passing through, looking for some substance, and I foubnd an article that reads like a defensive response to something no longer in existence. There is little or no solid information here. Actio 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There was an extensive presentation of criticisms of CACI in this version of the article from a year ago. It wasn't very well supported by citations, though. Editors who take the time to write out detailed descriptions of a company's misdeeds, but who then don't include their sources, make it easy for corporate flacks to remove the information. My guess is that quite a bit of that criticism could be restored but only if someone is willing to do the work of finding appropriate citations. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 5 September 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


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)


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)