Talk:Leidos/Archive 1

SAIC, Inc.
I don't know how to put this in the main text, and it will be irrelevant mid-2006 (and then mid-2007), but the IPO is actually the creation of a new entity "SAIC, Inc." which will then merge with the current SAIC, giving current employees shares that vote at 10-to-1 from public shares, for a maximum of one year. More info is at the IPO URL I tacked onto the main page. RevRagnarok 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What's going on with the IPO? RJII 05:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just go to http://www.saic.com/ - there's usually info there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.87.49 (talk • contribs)
 * They opened at $15 10/13/2006 and closed at $18.18, up 21.2%.

Mergers / Spinoffs
As an anon editor pointed out, they were a large shareholder in Network Solutions. They also owned Telecordia for a while. I know I saw a good timeline recently of mergers/spinoffs. But I don't remember where. So if we can collect some data, that would be a good new section. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They owned Telcordia. Luis F. Gonzalez 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Small saicblue.png
Image:Small saicblue.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bashing
It seems a neutral article about a company of this scale would not include such negative information that is not on the same scale. Otherwise, it seems like bashing. As an example, Lockheed_Martin's article only includes one negative statement, related to their violation of the Arms Export Control Act. This violation was an historical event, not quite on the scale of Enron, but certainly noteworthy. In contrast, SAIC's financial losses on individual accounts had a minor impact on their financial health. Do the Greek Olympics and FBI problems matter? There is no mention of SAIC in the 2004 Summer Olympics article. The FBI article includes mention of SAIC and the Virtual Case File, but under Criticisms. That entry does not criticize SAIC, but attributes "poorly defined goals and repeated changes in management...," an admission of the FBI, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.164.110 (talk • contribs)


 * Just an investigation of David Kay alone reveals an incestuous and utterly corrupt relationship that exists between defense corporations, the Pentagon, and the US government at the highest level. With billions of dollars of contracts handed out to corporations led by people such as Kay, who try and justify the policies that make such contracts possible, is a crime of monstrous proportions. A crime that the media ignores completely... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.9 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is not a site that performs investigative journalism; that would be original research. However, given the notability of this huge US government contractor, at this point I think we should include almost any cited factual information we can find.  If too much material arises, it would make sense to prune a bit, but right now the article is not much more than a stub. --Treekids (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely there is room for criticism
A page that discusses SAIC, an enormous corporation whose business is intricately tied up to the workings of a governemnt, should be open for criticism. I hate that often on the net or in the media, just because someone says something bad about a certain corporations, suddenly that article or view is labelled as being left wing propoganda rather than containing truth and valid criticisms of corrupt corporations.. --210.246.53.207, 14:02, 6 July 2007

1. Please sign your posts.

2. Notable criticism may be added, if cited properly. Your own peronal, anonymous opinions, however, are not notable ;-)

--Treekids (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CityTime Contractor Admits Fraud, Agrees to Repayment
From the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal: "Science Applications International, the lead contractor on a New York City project that federal prosecutors have alleged was riddled with fraud, has agreed to pay $500 million as part of a deal that would spare the Virginia-based company criminal prosecution." Arcanicus (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC) http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/03/14/citytime-contractor-admits-fraud-agrees-to-repayment/

New York City Payroll System Scandal Finally Settled
Wed, Mar 14, 2012

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-paid-500-million-saic-fraud-case-173413960.html

"This resolution is - as far as our office is aware - the largest in history for any city or state fraud," Preet Bharara said at a news conference with Mayor Michael Bloomberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.156.218 (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

SAIC (company) → Science Applications International Corporation — Using the full expanded name is preferable to an artificial parenthesized suffix, i.e. "(company)". The numbering of the options in WP:NCDAB agrees with this. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This company is much better known as SAIC, and disambiguating with (Company) is perfectly in accordance with WP:D.  The current title is more concise than the proposed title, and conciseness is one of the principle naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose As part of the IPO, the company name officially became "SAIC" and no longer "Science Applications International Corporation." --Tekdude (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Belatedly: Meant to Withdraw this per Tekdude's discovery. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Company" is ambiguous, as SAIC Motor is also referred to as SAIC. And although the NYSE refers to SAIC as the holding company, and Science Applications International Corporation as the principal operating company (although a press release issued by the company in 2012 uses the names interchangeably. Does the NYSE use of "principal" mean that there are other operating companies owned by SAIC? Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move (inc.)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved to SAIC (U.S. company).  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

SAIC (company) → SAIC inc. or SAIC, inc. – SAIC (company) isn't ideal because there is also SAIC Motor. Natural disambiguation would do the trick. --Relisted Tyrol5   [Talk]  04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per proposer, although it should be "SAIC, Inc." for exactness.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't it be better as SAIC (U.S. company) ? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume that "SAIC (company)" will redirect to SAIC disambiguation page after the move? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if all the incoming links were changed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support either SAIC, Inc. or SAIC (U.S. company) and redirect "SAIC (company)" to SAIC disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Move SAIC (currently a disambiguation page) to SAIC (disambiguation) and move this page to SAIC. My second choice is to move this page to SAIC (U.S. company). It seems to me that this company is the primary topic for "SAIC". SAIC Motor gets many more article views, but it does not seem to a primary topic for SAIC because it is not obvious from its article title that it is frequently known by the name "SAIC". The other entries on the disambiguation page are low-probability abbreviations. If SAIC Motor is often called "SAIC" (that's not obvious from the current article name), then I guess disambiguation is needed. If so, that should be done via the parenthetical indication "U.S. company", not by adding "Inc." to the name.  Wikipedia convention for titling of articles (see Article titles) calls for omitting terms like "Inc." and "Ltd." from company names -- and this company is not known to go by the name "SAIC Inc." --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Updated; below comments demonstrate that SAIC Motor is often called "SAIC". --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems SAIC Motor could be called SAIC. I wouldn't want to risk the confusion considering SAIC Motor is a much larger company. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Move SAIC (company) to SAIC (U.S. company), although that may need to be changed again later this year, when SAIC splits into two companies. Keep SAIC as a disambiguation page. Keep SAIC Motor as it is; that seems to be a commonly used name per Google. SAIC (company) should be left as a redirect to the DAB page rather than to SAIC (U.S. company). --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW the article currently is a disorganized mess. I updated and rearranged it a little, but I don't have time to fully wikify it. Anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SAIC (U.S. company) is unnecessarily clumsy and clunky. It is also debateable as to whether SAIC should be seen as primarily a "US company" or a "multinational company based in the United States", or indeed as a "defense company".
 * Although we generally omit terms such as "plc", "Limited", "Inc" and "LLP" from company article titles, they are used for disambiguation purposes (in the same way that formal names are used instead of common names when a common name has been taken either by another article or a disambiguation page).Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to SAIC (U.S. company). The most commonly used name for this topic is "SAIC", and the title should reflect that.  SAIC, Inc. does not.  Of all the uses of SAIC, "U.S. company"  properly distinguishes this use from the others. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Upcoming company split into Leidos, new SAIC
As announced last year, SAIC intends to divide into two separate companies, a service company to be named Science Applications International Corporation and a solutions company to be named Leidos. The split is anticipated to occur later this year.

As a current employee on the communications team, I’m looking to Wikipedia editors for the best approach in handling the upcoming separation and the company pages post-split. I am aware of the current COI guidelines and am using the Talk page to work with objective editors. Please help us work through the best approach for the modifications needed.

1. SAIC as it is now has the official name of SAIC, Inc. with a ticker symbol of SAI. The smaller of the two companies will be known as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (no “inc.”) with a ticker symbol of SAIC. This new company, while retaining the SAIC name is actually the spin-off of the larger company, to be renamed Leidos. -	How should the current SAIC (U.S. company) page be addressed post-split, since SAIC, Inc. will be no more? Should a new page be created for new SAIC and this one be archived? Or can this current page archive past information about SAIC, Inc. and create content for new SAIC?

2. There is some information currently on the page that is outdated. Can we work with an editor to update this factual information? Example: As of 2009, SAIC employed 45,000 employees in 150 cities worldwide and reported $10.8 billion in revenue for its fiscal year ended January 31, 2009, making it number 285 on the Fortune 500 list. The updated figures are available for fiscal year ended January 31, 2013 and also need to be updated in the sidebar. 38,000 employees, $11.17 billion in revenue, $525 million net income, #240 on Fortune 500. The image also is outdated. There is one available for public use of the current HQ in McLean, VA.

References: About SAIC 2013 Annual Report Industry rankings Image of McLean Towers

--Swedbergs (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been almost two weeks since I first posed the questions above, in compliance with Wikipedia's COI guidelines. What are other editors' thoughts regarding this Wiki page after the upcoming split of the company and additional factual updates to the current page? I will go in and make the factual updates to the current SAIC (U.S. company) at the end of the week if no one gets back. --Swedbergs (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If new SAIC is going to be a spin off of the old SAIC which will be renamed Leidos, than IMO something similar should happen to the articles. A new article should be created for new SAIC and current article renamed to Leidos (after the split). We could use new logos, Swedbergs can someone send them to OTRS, a SVG version would be nice. Alternatively if there is a place on the web where they can be found under open license, than we could upload them. Same for upper upper management and HQ. I checked the Image of McLean Towers but the link to terms of use is dead so I can not check if it is released under open license compatible with our licensing requirements. It is also small over-saturated image, may be you can just take a few pictures yourself and upload them to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a better Image of McLean Towers and the current Media Library Terms of Use where the image if stored does allow use for editorial purposes. To your point about the article - a new article for new SAIC and current article renamed Leidos (after the split) - what's the best way/process to make this happen? Before a separate Wikipedia article is created for Leidos? Can we discuss further, maybe on your Talk page? --Swedbergs (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now Leidos redirects to SAIC. There was proposal to create Leidos (U.S. Company) but it was denied for time being. I think the best course of action is to wait for the split and than rename the article. It might be splitting heirs, but the confusing part that multiple people already got wrong is that Leidos is not spinn-off from SAIC but New SAIC is a spin-off from old SAIC which at the same time changes name to Leidos. As for the McLean Towers image - terms of use are not compatible with Wikipedia rules, but I uploaded it as a Fair use image. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember the unusual nature of the split the next time "SAIC" is in the news. Think: who do you blame? 164.119.77.75 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume it will be in the news a lot at the end of the month. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

history section
I think the article needs more info. I understand why you jarekt cut the anthrax report out ("section does not seem to be related much to the company, and is covered in depth in Steven Hatfill article") but I think it must be at least mentioned, as it is related to the company.
 * History section could be improved. 2001 FBI allegations should be in it at least or moved as subsection.
 * more concrete info about what SAIC/Leidos is doing than the company propaganda weasel words in the intro "scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical services".
 * page also fits more categories like category:military intelligence, category:fortune 500 companies, list:top 100 military contractors etc. will do what I can. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wuerzele, thanks for your edits, suggestions and additional sources supporting some of the unsourced statement. History section is badly needed, at some point I noticed that both saic.com and leidos.com had year by year history of the company. I am also all for purging the "weasel words" and replacing them with something with more meaning. --Jarekt (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Virtual Case File
About this revert: shouldn't we find an intermediate solution between just naming the project and writing down a detailed post-mortem analysis? This is obviously a big, infamous and interesting project (which had SAIC much more publicity than usual), plus it seems the FBI, even if mostly responsible, cannot be the only one charged for this failure. -- ClementSeveillac 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Of cause, give the really large cases their own page and simply state the cases with a link to the full articles. But of cause only cases big enough to be relevant for WP. 195.158.167.56

I discovered a source for the "citation needed" in this section, but the quotes don't fully match. Not sure to update the article to match the discovered source, or wait for a source for the current quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.8.117 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Merger
Lockheed's IS&GS business unit is scheduled to merge with Leidos on 8/16/2016 per http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2016/07/lockheed-martin-signals-date-for-it-merger-with.html]. Several statics will need to be updated including employee count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.0.105 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leidos. 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/20160312130145/http://about-networksolutions.com/corporate-history.php to http://about-networksolutions.com/corporate-history.php

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) 16:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversies?
According to the controversies section, several high-ranking former government officials work at Leidos. Ok. Sounds like interesting trivia bit as thesection currently stands, it doesn’t explain how/why that is controversial. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leidos. 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/20071009004853/http://investors.saic.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=193857&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=918956&highlight= to http://investors.saic.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=193857&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=918956&highlight=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001154001/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104 to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F09-24-2009%2F0005100520&EDATE=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302035521/http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/19355-1.html to http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/19355-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913235433/http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/c/co-030613-saic.html to http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/c/co-030613-saic.html

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) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)