Talk:P.E.O. Sisterhood

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* the page is down!
** In P.E.O. Sisterhood on Mon Jul 17 14:18:19 2006, 404 Not Found
** In P.E.O. Sisterhood on Thu Jul 27 00:25:39 2006, 404 Not Found
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello.  I am Think Fast.  A few months ago I added  to this article.  (This edit was then reverted by Fetofs at 20:36, June 3, 2006.)  I added this template because it is annoying to me that the "secret" of the backronym PEO is alledgedly exposed in the "name" section.  I am the relative of a long-time PEO.  She has hinted for a long time that the real meaning of PEO is a secret.  Because respectful of the organization, I had no wish to discover the true meaning of PEO.  As I was scanning this article, Protect  Each Other caught my eye.  I was very unhappy and disturbed to see the true meaning.</br>
Yes, I admit that it is sort of strange to add a spoiler alert.  Contrary to the template, there are no plot/ending details following the spoiler alert.  I was aware of this, but added it anyway because I felt that there needed to be some warning before the telling of secrets.  I looked but could not find any other template signifying the giving-away of a secret besides the spoiler alert.</br>
If anyone else has an idea about what to use as a warning, please let me know.  I would be more than happy to create the template. --Think Fast 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must assume that I was a bit nervous with all the reverts in this article. Wikipedia:Spoiler warning tells us that a spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of it by revealing certain plot events or twists. I don't think revealing what an acronym stands for is a lot spoilery since it doesn't fit into that definition and the meaning for an acronym is the least you expect from any article. I see that for you the acronym was a mystery of sorts; but I can't see that happening to many readers. fetofs Hello! 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Template 

message: What about a compromise?  Is it possible to have the disputed text in white font? With white font, it is possible to identify the information, but the reader has to work for the information.  Here's an example, to view the next statement, the reader must highlight it with the cursor.  This is a way to hide secrets.  What do you think about that as an idea?  Princess LJ 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Would the person(s) who have been recently removing the documented meaning of the acronym P.E.O. from this article care to explain their reasoning?  This article recently emerged from having been protected from editing due to edit-warring over this content, and it would be a shame to see it return to this frozen state due to mindless resumption of this back-and-forth.  Does anyone have a reason for excluding this content, besides those already covered and addressed above? --24.21.106.174 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reasons covered and addressed above .. and the edit-warring and resultant protection .. provide adequate evidence that many people would like that part of the article removed.  If it is not, I will only presume that the edit-warring will continue until possibly another freeze is imposed.  Leave the book references; if someone is that curious, they can look it up themselves.  Let them keep their secrets - that's what the "magic" is all about. 68.218.98.53 21:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In my home the name was "Pigs Eat Onions" or "Philanthropic Educational Organization." This Reference to actual knowledege of the name should be eliminated for several reasons:
Because there is such warring that apparently cannot be abated
Because this is an insignificant and, frankly, silly point
Because only the members know and they--some of my closest relatives--are not telling--it seems unlikely that there will be an genuinely authoritative source--published or otherwise
Because publishing simply does not make information factual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbyerley (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for removing "PEO" content 

message: According to the bylaws of PEO, no member is allowed to speak, write, or publish the actual meaning of the letters P.E.O. So, without a confirmation from a member, all theories are nothing but rumor and speculation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbreneman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Since there are no published reports sponsored by the organization, only a member or a publication sponsered by the organization can be a suitable source. Please cite the first name, last name, and chapter the member is from if you want report the meaning of the acronym PEO. 76.84.151.137 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, could you please point us all to a published version of those bylaws?  It would be an excellent citation to add to this article.  Secondly, assuming that the bylaws say what you claim, the only verifiable source for the true meaning of PEO would necessarily be in a source that is not sponsored by the organization (unless I suppose PEO accidentally sponsored a publication without realizing it revealed this secret).  So the request for a citation from a sponsored source seems to amount to a request for something that doesn't exist, and so isn't really helpful.  Finally, there is a distinction to be made between a "rumor" or "speculation" vs. an independent source, isn't there?  The citations supplied for the "P.E.O." theory are obviously independent of PEO, but they constitute reputable research and don't deserve to be called speculative or rumor-speading. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Tbreneman, please read Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and no original research; your suggestions that I conduct my own research on the organization are not really consistent with these.  I also am not sure why you assume that I haven't spoken with one or more members, but that is beside the point.  Regarding possible multiple theories regarding the name, provided that these have been published as verifiable citations, this article should certainly cover them in the interest of completeness.  So by all means, please add any other theories you may find in published literature for the meaning of PEO.  In particular, I think you should definitely add the fact that the Sisterhood's official website is currently claiming that PEO stands for "Philanthropic Educational Institution" (fascinating, if the bylaws actually forbid disclosing the meaning -- is their webmaster disobeying the bylaws, or is the Sisterhood deliberately spreading false information?).  But in any case:  please revert your deletion of the "P.E.O." theory.  Deleting properly cited content from Wikipedia pages is considered vandalism. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: First, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as calling others' efforts to improve this page "cowardly", and stop disparaging those (like yourself!) who choose to edit anonymously.  Second, this is an encyclopedia article about PEO, its history, and practices, and if you read the discussion above you will see that wp:consensus is that the meaning of the name is quite appropriate to be discussed here (though not on other pages only tangentially related to PEO, such as Cottey College).  I think it's a shame that apparently almost all the effort that PEO sisters have put into editing this page has gone into trying to censor the meaning of the name from appearing, rather than, as you rightly point out, documenting the many positive aspects of this organization.  And I fail to see how documenting here (as has already been done elsewhere) what the letters PEO stand for, detracts in any way from the accomplishments of or be insulting to to its many members across the years.  I personally have no such intent, and don't think the other editors who are promoting conformity to Wikipedia's policies do either. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The Tbreneman's repeated blanking of "P.E.O." is vandalism not because he or she is being stubborn, it is because he or she has been removing two valid citations and the information they support from the page, despite repeated explanations that this is considered a form of vandalism on Wikipedia.  The accuracy of this information, though cited, is certainly up for discussion.  Do you have a more accurate source to cite?  If so, by all means add this information to the page.  But simply subtracting information from a page because it bothers you is not helpful to the community at large (though I suppose it may be an obligation of PEO membership?). --24.21.106.174 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumoring and Speculating 

message: Would a non-anonymous editor please request mediation by the Cabal?  This edit-warring is tiresome.  The dispute appears to be whether any non-PEO-approved published source for the meaning of the name "PEO" could be anything but "rumor and speculation".  I have made my case for why this reasoning is spurious; but anonymous vandalizing of the page is continuing.  Can a third-party please offer an objective opinion, and help end this?  --24.21.106.174 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, personally, I don't really see where there is any doubt what the name stands for since it's listed right on the Web site. Any other explanations are clearly just rumors. Here is the information DIRECTLY FROM THE WEBSITE:
"P.E.O. (philanthropic educational organization), one of the pioneer societies for women, was founded on January 21, 1869, by seven students at Iowa Wesleyan College in Mount Pleasant, Iowa. Originally a small campus friendship society, P.E.O. soon blossomed to include women off campus. Today, P.E.O. has grown from that tiny membership of seven to almost a quarter of a million members in chapters in the United States and Canada. The P.E.O. Sisterhood is passionate about its mission: promoting educational opportunities for women. Our sisterhood proudly makes a difference in women's lives with five international projects: P.E.O. Educational Loan Fund, Cottey College, P.E.O. International Peace Scholarship Fund, P.E.O. Program for Continuing Education, and P.E.O. Scholar Awards. P.E.O. is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa." 63.70.164.200 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While it may be tiresome for some individuals to keep posting all the different theories out there, it gets tiresome for the rest of us to protect the integrity of the organization. We are just shifting the focus back to promoting educational opportunities for women, and away from the "secret society" rumors and speculation. Call P.E.O. a secret society, a club, whatever, but there is not even a hint from the organization that P.E.O. stands for anything other than philanthropic educational organization. And there is nothing that even hints that P.E.O. is a secret society. No more than greek organizations are, anyway. Therefore, any information printed by a book that makes its money on exploiting the "secrets" of organizations, is just flat out speculating information, unless there is a valid source or citation that comes from the organization. It's just not acceptable to post speculative theories that are unconfirmed from the organization, when the true meaning is CLEARLY spelled out right on the organization's OFFICIAL WEB SITE.Tbreneman (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have evidence against the scholarship or credibility of Stahl and Kerchelich, or of Douglas Keister, please bring it forward.  If your only criticism is that they aren't speaking for PEO, that can only be an argument in favor of the validity of these sources.  So please stop vandalizing the page in the name of "protecting the integrity of [PEO]"; that's NOT a valid reason for removing published reputable information.  --24.21.106.174 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... this seems to be the downfall of Wikipedia. The ethical line is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, since I have several family members in PEO, I'm going to have to weigh in, knowing that my mother and aunts would be very sad to see the the "true meaning" (hypothesized by those outside the organization) posted without the organization's consent or confirmation. From what I can see, the meaning (as hypothesized) has been published in a few books, which are being cited as sources. While I suppose this technically means it should be included, I'm not sure why anyone would want to since it clearly means so much to those who are involved. But, all I can go off of is the fun my mother and aunts had with the organization. I know that, whatever the meaning is, they certainly felt very strongly that it should never be known to others outside of P.E.O. TeddyMurph (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, TeddyMurph, for weighing in on this admittedly controversial and emotional issue.  I agree that the ethics can get blurry here (see, for example, past discussion of whether the meaning of PEO should appear in tangentially related articles, not just this main one).  In response, though, I would like to point out that I don't necessarily agree that the secret name "means so much to those who are involved", as this assumes a uniformity in the attitude of the many hundreds of Sisters in the organization, and in my experience, at least some of those Sisters don't think the secret-keeping tradition is particularly important or helpful to the Sisterhood (though they do feel intense social pressure to keep it).  I'd also like to question whether there is some sexist/ageist reasoning lurking here:  if PEO was a mixed-gender group of young people, and not a group associated with "nice old ladies", would these conflict of interest edits be thought of in the same light?  Finally, as for my own motivation (as I can't speak for the other editors who have been trying to keep the secret of the name in this article), it is at heart to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedic source of knowledge that it can be.  I really care about principles of academic freedom and openness, and the idea that any outside group can censor what can be well-documented about it (or that Wikipedia would self-censor itself in this manner) bothers me a lot.  I'll admit that I may at this point, after many months of fighting this particular fight, not be particularly "objective" about the situation; that's in part why I'm calling for some outside mediation, results of which I think anyone with Wikipedia's best interests at heart will be happy to abide by. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Editors recently changed the introduction by inserting a claim that the original mission of PEO was to provide philanthropic and educational opportunities for women (essentially identical to the current mission).  However, the Sisterhood's website only says, "Originally a small campus friendship society, P.E.O. soon blossomed to include women off campus."  Can anyone provide a reference showing what the original mission was?  Anyone know if or how the mission has changed over the years?  Thanks, --24.21.106.174 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original mission? 

message: I've added the dispute tag to the article as a gesture to the editors who've repeatedly blanked the sourced information regarding the original meaning of P.E.O.'s name.  This is an effort to bring them to the table and get them to work within Wikipedia instead of against it.  I've left a message to this effect on the talk pages of all the named editors who've recently blanked the content in question.  If, after a reasonable period of time, those editors don't make any efforts to engage in discussion on the matter, the dispute tag can come down.  Dppowell (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over a month, so I took the dispute tag off. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: As a completely neutral admin, I came across this article this morning and came across the statement: 
While it is cited, I suspect that the references may be to the term P.E.O. in general rather than in this specific context.  This is a highly POV and inflammatory statement and I would like to see verification so I have added  to all three referneces.  If the quotes are not referring to this specific organization, the statement should be removed as it is speculation that it is applicable to this context.  Either way, I have reworded the statement to be a neutral statement and remove "whether or not" about an unclear issue.  Unless this interpretation of the name is demonstrated applicable in this context, this is purely WP:OR. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Toddst1, for working to improve this article.  I should have made clearer in the statement you quoted that "P.E.O." in these sources refer to this specific Sisterhood, not some general concept.  I'm not sure how to properly quote dictionaries or glossaries; could you add the following content in an appropriate format?  Keister quote is 'PEO [=] P.E.O. Sisterhood ("Protect Each Other")'; the Schmidt and Babchuk quote is 'P.E.O. SISTERHOOD (PEO).  Of all the fraternal secret societies, PEO is without a doubt the most secretive. The order has even kept the meaning of the letters P.E.O. secret; however, it is believed that they stand for Protect Each Other.'  (I don't have ready access to the Abbreviation Dictionary entry, though it was similarly unambiguously referring to the P.E.O. Sisterhood.) As for being inflammatory and POV, if this is how it comes across I can only say I had no such intent, but was only trying to reconcile the apparently divergent content that recently appeared on the secret organization's website vs. previously appearing in the published literature.  I'd welcome any effort to relate this divergence more neutrally.  (I'm not sure it's possible to avoid all inflammation around this topic, though, as members of the secret society itself will have strong negative reactions to seeing their secret revealed in public.) --24.21.106.174 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Attemt to settle this

message: "Protect Each Other" seems unlikely, as this is an educational organization, and that is very poor English, unless it refers to only two people.76.195.221.79 (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect Each Other 

message: Rituals follow predetermined scripts but P.E.O. meetings do not. The initiation ceremony does have pledges with predetermined text, but regular meetings are basically reports of committees. The reported committee activities involve fund-raising for the scholarships, seeking out new scholarship candidates and supporting existing ones. If some hard-line Lutheran Commission in Missouri considered the P.E.O. an "objectionable society on religious grounds" back in 1966 that does not make it so. You could say that this particular pod of Lutherans objects to the P.E.O. if their opinion was relevant to the article (or to the P.E.O.), but you could not on that basis call the P.E.O. "an objectionable society".
That said, I am a P.E.O. and am not neutral. I did ask two neutral parties to check what I wrote. It has some stylistic weaknesses, but I was trying to tip-toe around and not distort existing text. This is my first non-technical edit and I welcome any advice. WestCoastSue (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed description of P.E.O. as "ritualistic" 

message: There are no references to the P.E.O. (or PEO) on the WikiProject pages for Secret Societies. WestCoastSue (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Secret Societies" tag 

message: I just received a scholarship from the Oregon P.E.O Sisterhood. I think everyone is so focused on what P.E.O. means that they are forgetting what it does. Had I not received this scholarship, I would not be able to complete graduate school. Quite frankly, I don't care what it means… Don’t you people have anything better to do than envy what is secretly known by others? Apparently not.LeslieMoore (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Have a P.E.O Scholarship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on P.E.O. Sisterhood. 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://archive.is/20150313065203/http://38.126.102.66/dgm/Article/28605/index.html to http://38.126.102.66/dgm/Article/28605/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311034746/http://www.peochapterhouse.org/history_homes.html to http://www.peochapterhouse.org/history_homes.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) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I thought that I'd ask whether anyone has looked at the references listed for the section. I know that they don't have to be online, but still it seems thin.
*Handbook of Secret Organizations - Whalen. All that is there is '...but it is thought to stand for "Protect Each Other".'
*Fraternal Organizations - Schmidt. The end of the section states the present report is largely based on Whalen's Handbook of Secret Organizations. Since this is based on the previous, to me it should *not* be included as a reference.
*"Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary: A Guide to Acronyms, Abbreviations, Contractions, Alphabetic Symbols, and Similar Condensed Appellations", while I haven't looked at the entry seems to me to be very much a Tertiary Source, and I'd be surprised if the section on P.E.O was large enough to give where they got it from.
So for me, at this point, I'd be in favor of dropping it due to the inferior quality references.Naraht (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, of course, a different matter than the above discussion.  If the sources are inadequate, the information should stay out- it shouldn't stay out to help this organization keep its secrets. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a different matter.Naraht (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As the organization and its members prefer not to reveal the original meaning, it's hardly surprising that any sources that make some appearance of doing so are at arm's length and may therefore look a bit "thin". That is why we intentionally began the contested sentence with the cautious and qualified phrasing "Sources outside of P.E.O. have suggested ...". With that qualification, all three sources seem like the sort of reasonably solid publications that we would be perfectly happy to accept in other contexts (though I allow there may be a case for removing Schmidt/Babchuk, as it is expressly parroting Whalen). Bonk & Dear's Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary is a tertiary source, but it is a scholarly reference work from a respected educational publisher (Gale), that reached its 32nd edition in 2003 (our citation was of the 29th edition of 2001). I have consulted it in the past, though I don't recall how far it goes in citing sources. As long as we make clear that the expansion of the initialism is in no way "official" or definitive, but merely one documented suggestion, I really don't think that adequacy of sources should be an issue. GrindtXX (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for "Secret meaning"