Talk:United States House Committee on Veterans' Affairs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States House Committee on Veterans' Affairs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Chair and Ranking Member

This information is incorrect, if you go to www.senate.gov and then go to the appropriate committee you can see all of this info is wrong. I dont know how to edit otherwise I would. Thanks

Jake, 19 November 2007207.255.186.143 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is some what limited in scope. the breadth of the control of this committee isn't discussed it past mistakes its future plans have been eliminated even though well written and supported edits have been made. the scope comment is week and unsupported less supported then the deleted edits.

many article have sensations that have been deleted in this article one must ask themselves why is this. this article would greatly be improved with less deletion and more editing .

Government agencies make up is key to its successful completion of it designed reason of being but the make up of its committee though in the past has been brought up and supported the editors have removed it rather then EDITING it .

to complain that this is not a forum brings up questions in itself one of a deeper darker nature that I can ask because that would be considered out of scope.

as had been posted in many articles of a gov nature there is a image problem that is trying to be addressed by editing related articles . this article would benefit by more EDITING and less omitting. This would allow it to take shape and build a better representation of what readers want to read when they come to wiki to get a non corporate view and generally well rounded discussions supported by data that can be properly disputed and edited by pear reader/editors

thank you for your time Darrell A imjaided — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.188.228 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]