Jump to content

Talk:P.E.O. Sisterhood/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name

From P.E.O. Memorial Library and Founders Portraits....P.E.O. has stood for Progress,Expansion and Opportunity... 67.160.128.226 has repeatedly claimed in edits that Wikipedia editors are trying to "censor" one of the "theories" about what "P.E.O." stands for. This is not the case. What editors, myself included, are looking for is a source. I have removed the irrelevant information when it has been posted to the Cottey College article, but I do fully support it being here – if it can be proven. Saying a theory exists doesn't mean much unless it can be shown that it's shared by more people than yourself.

In short, please do not assume that anyone is trying to "censor" on Wikipedia, as that is a very serious allegation. All we want is sourced information, and it would be great if someone could provide at least one reference. Thanks! Beginning 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The theory appears on several web pages -- see for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. While none of these is definitive, together they do suggest that such a theory is out there. Add to this the edit history for the "P.E.O. Sisterhood" page, which repeatedly was stripped of any reference to the phrase even when hedged as "one theory", and it does look like someone was highly motivated to keep this phrase from appearing on that page. Perhaps these edits were for legitimate source quality reasons; but none of the removals had summaries explaining the individual's reasoning. I believe it plausible that censorship was being attempted here -- not by the Wikipedia community, but by a motivated individual. 67.160.128.226 06:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Enforcing Wikipedia's rule about verifiability is not censorship. If you want to add these allegations about the meaning of the "P.E.O." initials, please provide citations to support them. Controversial assertions that are not backed by citation may be removed. And people who persistently war over the content of articles may find themselves asked to leave Wikipedia. If this edit war continues, I will protect the article and/or ban one or more editors. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for bringing up censorship, and had not fully understood the burden of proof that verifiability puts on editors who want to :include, rather than remove, content from articles. I believe I have now located verifiable sources that document the PEO = Protect Each Other theory. These are:
  • Abbreviations Dictionary (ISBN: 0849390036), Dean A Stahl & Karen Kerchelich (Eds.), CRC Press, which on p. 805 in the entry for PEO notes secret women's organization)".
  • Stories in Stone: A Field Guide to Cemetery Symbolism and Iconography (ISBN: 158685321X), by Douglas Keister, Gibbs Smith Press, which in a glossary on p. 220 defines PEO as "P.E.O. Sisterhood ('Protect Each Other')"
I have no wish to restart an edit war, but would now like to include this now-verifiable information on this page. Do you approve, Kelly Martin? 67.160.128.226 07:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add that information to the article with the appropriate citations as noted. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I did. But User:150.216.14.43 took it upon themselves to re-start the edit war be removing this information, calling it "irrelevant". What's the proper Wikipedian way to resolve this issue? Thanks, 67.160.128.226 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to "re-start the edit war". It appears that User:67.160.128.226 is plain old fashioned mean spirited and wants to tell the world something that he/she can only speculate to ruin the fun of over a quarter of a million women. Just because some speculative theories of the true meaning of P.E.O. have been published in any number of locations does not mean that they are true, thus any speculation of the meaning is irrelevant and Wikipedia has no business with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.14.43 (talk • contribs)

Please don't speculate, incorrectly, about my motives. And please don't unilaterally remove valid but controversial information from this page if you don't want to be seen as re-starting an edit war. Regarding the information about the name: you call it speculation, but these sources present it as fact. Finally, I don't think protecting an organization's secret in the interest of "not ruining the fun" is a valid criteria for deciding what should and should not appear in Wikipedia. But I would like to hear others opinions on this. 67.160.128.226 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been lurking around this conversation and even though I'm sure 67.160.128.226 is looking for someone other than me to respond, I cannot help but throw my two cents in. 67.160.128.226 and 151.148.192.138 both seem intent on putting irrelevant and unnecessary information on the P.E.O. Sisterhod page and I concur with 150.216.14.43in the comment that it appears to be "mean spirited" because of the attempts to place the therorized meaning of P.E.O. in the "Cottey College" and "Nevada, MO" pages as well where it is even more irrelevant. There is no reason to place your therories on the true meaning of P.E.O. on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess LJ (talk • contribs)

I couldn't help to throw my $0.02 either! How can a theory that is directly related to the society described in the article to be "irrelevant", as in your edit summaries? However, I do think that this page would be the only place to do that, at least until this is resolved. BTW, sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. It makes the discussion a lot easier to read. Fetofs Hello! 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the information as to the source of the name is quite relevant, and I do not see how it can be seen as otherwise. I am at the point that I believe that the editors removing it are removing it due to an obligation (presumably of membership) not to allow that information to be propogated. If this is the case, they are advised to cease removing it. This piece of information appears to be both factual and verifiable, as well as relevant, and therefore belongs in the article. If this edit war continues, I am quite willing to take this matter to RFC, and, if necessary, Arbitration. I hope it will not come to that. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kelly. The information is relevant and sourced. The attempts to remove it seem to be quite unreasonable, and potentially due to the affilations that Kelly suggests. Please do not remove it again until you can determine where that action falls within Wikipedia policy, which I do not believe it does.--Sean Black 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And I would like to join Fretofs and Princess LJ in asking 151.148.192.138 to stop placing the meaning of the PEO acronym on the Cottey College and Nevada, Missouri pages, where it is irrelevant. (And I'd like to correct Princess LJ's implication that I've been involved placing the name on those pages; I haven't.) --67.160.128.226 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is not relevant on those pages. However, I would note that it likely would not have found its way to THOSE pages had it not been rebuffed so persistently on THIS page..... Our policies are as they are for many reasons. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So we seem to agree on an outcome of this edit war. Let's wait to see if someone reverts again, hopefully that is not going to happen. Fetofs Hello! 12:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. They are persistent. fetofs Hello! 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As a P.E.O. Sister, my understanding is that we routinely give out plausible but false theories about what the initials stand for. For anyone to affirmatively state that they KNOW the actual meaning is by its nature incorrect, because the only people who know are keeping it secret. When pressed, we keep the secret by lying about what it means. Therefore, you cannot ever trust any source on this subject. For what it's worth, though, I thought it stood for "Pa Eats Out." Wmarsden 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. [(My grandmother (who was like a 2nd mother to me) was a P.E.O. member. She went to her grave (last year) without ever doing more than smile knowingly and giving us all the "Philanthropic Educational Organization" thing.)] Secret organizations with 250,000 members CANNOT keep their secrets from leaking out. The Masons, the Mormons, every fraternity in America... sorry, but get over it. A Doon 00:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
My mother (ca. 1960s) insisted it was "People Eat Onions." DOR (HK) (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've tried to break down the sourcing as follows:

1) One source that has the organization giving what it says its name stands for, which seems not only fair but necessary. There's no conversation unless you start there.
2) Three sources in agreement; I found a lot more, but those seemed like good enough ones to use.
3) Three sources in disagreement, which keeps it even. Two books plus one website.

If there's any disagreement, please keep it civil. I just want that section to be really fair, and I think this improves it a lot.

I also changed it to say "unspecified rituals," because frankly, having just "rituals" without saying what they are seems rather silly, and no source that I found talked about any rituals (confirmed or alleged) of the Sisterhood. Does anyone have one? It would be good to include if such a thing exists. Beginning 22:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the members of this "organization" are sworn to secrecy, it is not surprising that no verification of what the initials stand for is readily available. The initiation ceremony is divided into four or 5 parts with each individual only possessing the part they have to say, to avoid it being made public. I'm not going to edit the site, but if someone wants to use my remarks, - feel free. The average age of the members of this group has to be pretty old - some of the older ones in particular would be upset by anyone knowing their lifelong "secrets." (comment left here by: 207.0.244.203 21:48, 20 June 2006)
Editors cannot "make use of your remarks" because you haven't provided any published verifiable sources for this information. Do you have some, e.g., for what the national office of the Lutheran Church (?!) is saying about this organization? --67.160.128.226 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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!

maru (talk) contribs 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Template

Hello. I am Think Fast. A few months ago I added {{spoiler}} 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.
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.
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)

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)

Idea

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)

Reasons for removing "PEO" content

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)

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)
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)

Rumoring and Speculating

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)

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)
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)

Well, since the bylaws are kept by the chapters, I suggest that you find one in your area and ask one of the kind ladies for a copy. Just explain to them what you are doing, and if nothing else, perhaps you'll gain a better understanding about the generous, gracious, and classy ladies that stand behind the P.E.O. organization. I'm sure they'd love to tell you all about their local philanthropic activities. After all, many of the members are retired ladies who have dedicated their lives to volunteering in their communities. And once you've spoken to one, I'm sure they'd fill you in on the meaning of PEO, as published on the PEO Sisterhood Web site, which is "Philanthropic Education Organization." One of them may even allow you to use their name as a source for your citation. I'm afraid I just can't stand behind anything that isn't verified or publicly supported by the organization. Also, there are a great number of "independent sources" on a variety of subjects. And even if they are considered to be "credible," they are not neccessarily accurate. Perahaps you could cite the sources your sources used? Anyway, please check the veracity of your theories with members of the organization in your area before you post more information. Tbreneman (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've been following this discussion very closely, and I think it's an absolute shame to see the PEO meaning-- which has been cherished by so many women for so many decades--be treated so carelessly by a few individuals. I know women who have dedicated 50 to 60 years of their lives to their PEO sisters, it's philanthropies, and it's mission. To have a few people selfishly ignore these efforts is so sad to me. In fact, it's an absolute insult to these tireless volunteers. I understand those who feel that this page is not complete without the meaning. After all, I am a journalist by trade. But there comes a time when ethics must overtake all other things, and people must simply do the right thing. I challenge those who feel the need to splash theories across this page, step out behind your IP address. Write a letter to the editor of the PEO Record. Present your feelings to your local chapter. Otherwise, your acts are nothing but cowardly attacks on a sisterhood dedicated to philanthropy, and furthering the education of all women. 129.93.115.189 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well, regardless of all of those things... Tbreneman is not vandalizing the page because her efforts (and the efforts of others) are efforts in good faith to improve this page by clearing it of inaccurate information. Also, the vandalism page specifically states that stubborness is not vandalism. And regardless of whether not PEO stands for Philanthropic Education Organization, or anything else, there is only one published source that verifies the theory in question, and while it may be credible, it's not accurate. I say this page should only back information that is supported by the organization, or at the very least, not publish inaccurate information. 76.84.151.137 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Mediation request

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Original mission?

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)

Dispute tag

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)

It's been over a month, so I took the dispute tag off. --24.21.106.174 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Attemt to settle this

As a completely neutral admin, I came across this article this morning and came across the statement:

Whether this represents a change in the secrecy policy or the acronym's meaning, or is disinformation, is not clear, as multiple published sources have stated previously that "P.E.O." stood for "Protect Each Other".

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 {{Quote request}} 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)

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)

Protect Each Other

"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)

Removed description of P.E.O. as "ritualistic"

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)

Removed "Secret Societies" tag

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) WestCoastSue (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I Have a P.E.O Scholarship

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)

I too received a scholarship so thankful for it . My mother was a member.

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Alpha Xi Delta

I have just cut a paragraph largely copypasted from this blog post. One section that presumably has some sound basis, but that I simply don't understand, runs: "Although [P.E.O.] began as a collegiate organization, in 1902 it became a community-based one. The collegiate chapter at Iowa Wesleyan became Alpha Xi Delta’s second chapter. P.E.O. chapters spread across the country from Midwestern roots." Huh? Surely Alpha Xi Delta is a quite distinct sorority? And, anyway, we've already said that P.E.O. already had multiple chapters by 1883, well before 1902. Can somebody make sense of this, preferably with references to reliable sources? GrindtXX (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

GrindtXX, See https://www.franbecque.com/founding-day-alpha-xi-delta-connection-p-e-o-sisterhood/ for further detail.
Thank you; I have added a short paragraph to the article, which I hope makes things clear. GrindtXX (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Names and meanings

Apparently, for the past fifteen years thereabouts, several editors have made it their mission to Reveal! the esoteric or private meaning of the public name of this organization, the P.E.O. Sisterhood.

331dot challenged me to take this discussion back to the Talk page, after reverting my deletion of a partial paragraph and couple of references that exposed the name. OK dot. You are an experienced editor, and I (too) assume good faith.

Not all facts are appropriate for a summary article in an encyclopedia. Can we first agree on that? And even though something is referenced, doesn't mean it is valuable.

I have no connection with the P.E.O. Sisterhood. From afar, I note they are a 152-year old service club, and like similar societies they have a mixed bag of activity. Some members are young, with vibrant chapters, and others, probably many of the members and chapters are aging and less-active. Over the years, 'exposures' of their name have bedeviled them, where a weird interest by non-members has continued to press for an explanation of their initials. PEO has related several versions of what "PEO" means in their public pronouncements. Still, armchair investigators Want To Know.

I sat on this response, Dot, for several days, because I want to be kind. I want to be nice.

I have access to the esoteric work, rituals and symbolism of hundreds of fraternal societies. And I maintain the privacy of this information out of respect.

Calculating on the napkin before me, let's see... Carry the 1... Ah, yes. I can conclude there is exactly zero value to be derived in listing the esoteric name of Mabel and Hildegard's little club, over their objections. It isn't newsworthy; it doesn't add necessary color, and it ain't encyclopedic. Maybe a slight thrill will rise up the spine of the bloated thing*, sitting in an armchair, furiously typing away to ensure that others - joiners - don't get to have the fun of whispering that big secret to the new initiate. But a sad reality for our typist friend is that fraternal organizations are most often experiential in nature, so joining is a necessary step in achieving -- knowing -- the full benefit of the name and all it conveys. Just reading the dead words, well, they are then devoid of meaning, becoming mockable, like the unimaginative, faithless lives that some lead. (*A literary image. I'm not pointing to anyone specifically. I assume good, if misguided faith on the part of any who have pushed to expose this name.)

It is easy to break things. Easy to mock others. The members of this PEO group are five or six generations removed from their founders, whose 'imaginative' ritual back then may indeed be small or even silly to our modern eyes. But they retain it, they use it still, in spite of this. Must that be exposed? If you had a grandmother, who had a secret recipe, would you share it widely to the family Facebook group after sneaking to the back of her cookbook to read the ingredient list? Or would you smile, and let her have her fun, and build a bond with her when you ask that she passes it along so the secret wouldn't die should she meet an untimely end? We all have to choose what kind of person we aspire to be: Exposers, doxxers, most paparazzi, and the mocking investigators who think they are doing the Lord's work in spotlighting the PEO's name are cut from the same cloth. Such persons may have that momentary thrill up their spine, but I expect that few who know them will give them a pat on the back for a job well done. The thrill doesn't last; it never can. And they remain alone, not having joined, or having faithlessly exposed the secrets of a club they abandoned. Which tells more about them than the club.

Dot, I am again deleting this section, and I hope you, as an experienced editor and administrator see the wisdom in this. Jax MN (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jax MN I would request that you self-revert. In general when content is disputed, the status quo remains unti the dispute is resolved. See WP:BRD. In any event, the meaning of a group's name is certainly very relevant to its history so I strongly object to removing it. The fact that it is intended to be a secret is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We post the ending to The Mousetrap even though the audience is asked to not reveal it. If this group does not want the meaning of its name publicized, they need to do a better job of keeping it private. As long as independent reliable sources publicly discuss the name, it is valid content. Wikipedia is, as you seem to be aware, not censored for any reason. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I entirely agree with 331dot. If an organization has a slightly opaque name – from ARCO to PEN International – it is natural for the reader to be curious about its origin and meaning; and – within reasonable limits – it is our job, as editors, to satisfy that curiosity. If any entity is considered sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, this sort of basic information about it is encyclopedic, almost by definition. As things stand, we say (per P.E.O. itself) that the initialism has a "public" expansion; and a separate, original, "reserved" expansion. We then report (or did until Jax MN's deletion) what three reputable "sources outside of P.E.O." have suggested about what that alternative expansion might be, with the clear implication that their claims can be regarded as neither authoritative nor definitive. The fact that numerous drive-by editors (and now Jax MN) have repeatedly sought to delete even this cautious and qualified one-sentence statement only serves to underline that it may contain more than a grain of truth. GrindtXX (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous responses, both 331dot and GrindtXX.
We are admonished here, to be nice, be reasonable, and be kind. This is normally applied in our relations to each other, as fellow editors, as a culture we wish to emulate and to share with the 'newbies'. But does it also extend to the writing itself? I think so, to some extent, even though in other articles I've not shied from naming names and discussing organizational failings or controversies. For example, the concept of WP:BALANCE clearly sets forth that two sides to an argument do not necessarily require equal treatment, but rather, that if there is a fringe theory or analysis, that it only be treated marginally or even not at all if the main opinion is far more strongly supported among experts. We assess for value, in other words, and are not obligated to include obscure or distorted concepts that would otherwise impair a main summary. GrindtXX, this is why in the case of fraternal groups we do not include leaked esoteric names, even as (to your point) we do so with companies like ARCO. All Greek Letter groups have these "hidden" names. I know a number of them. Am I reducing the value of Wikipedia by not including them in these articles? I think not, because it seems to me that in these cases, the information is not germane or relevant to the necessary, critical-path summary of the organization. One need not know the specific words PEO stands for to understand its role in serving its communities.
Further, numerous spurious edits have occasionally led to exposures of other fraternal organizations' hidden or esoteric work, leading experienced administrators to, at times, offer partial page protections. So this precedent exists to counterbalance the effort to expose the name.
I thank you for walking through this discussion, using your user names and not hiding behind anonymous edits as others have done who have earlier weighed in on this 15-year discussion. I hope that our Talk page discussion here helps some of the newer editors understand the virtue in these discussions. Wikipedia is curated, a stringent summary of all the information out there, and does not include every unfiltered fact available on Google or in the Library of Congress. For my part, acknowledging your request that I self-revert, 331dot, I am mindful of my obligation to be kind and respectful, and this extends to Mabel and Hildegard, our representative members of the PEO. I choose therefore to let these sources go un-cited and unremarked and with respect, will not revert this "qualified one-sentence statement" that would rip open the skirts, as it were. To do so would serve no good purpose, and would expressly be unkind. Jax MN (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Jax MN No, Wikipedia articles are not censored to be kind. If unsourced claims are put into an article, or if WP:BLP is violated, that is not censorship, but removing content that violates policy. We aren't here to help organizations keep their secrets, but to summarize what independent reliable sources say.
This was well sourced content added in good faith, not an unsourced spurious edit. I'm disappointed you decline to self revert your edit that you lack consensus for, but I reserve the right to do if no consensus in favor of your position emerges.
By the way, IP edits are less anonymous, not more, than account names. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two instances in pages in the GLO area where members of the group try to remove. Phi Gamma Delta's is closer to a a picture of Mohammed, but this on PEO seems closer to having Kirjath Sepher mentioned on the page for Kappa Sigma. The difference is that Kirjath Sepher is referenced to the Fraternity's old (first few years of the Fraternity) magazines. So my question is what if this comes from a group which is deliberately anti-PEO?
Is a better area of comparison whether Wikipedia should contain information from Masonic or Latter Day Saint rituals where those who would expose it do so from an effort to destroy?Naraht (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Naraht, indeed that is an apt comparable, where "anti-Mormons" or "anti-Masons" seek to highlight small items (factual or not, sourced or not) for maximum damage. These efforts go beyond fairness and even-handedness into a zealous effort to harm. That's what I was getting at by inserting the word "kind" in relation to articles.
331dot, perhaps "kind" was the wrong word, as I was merely continuing the theme about personal relations. Wikipedia is best served by accuracy, brevity, and clarity. If I found an article on, say, diamonds that asserted that the crystalline structure vibrates in response to a person's aura in a complimentary phase relationship, most of us would consider this to be a garbage theory. But from a Wikipedia perspective, we'd go further: it would be dismissed as essentially irrelevant, un-scientific and non-rational even though a lot of people believe in auras and a lot of people think crystals have some sort of power. The theory, such as it is, may find a place to be mentioned in a WP article about the metaphysics of crystals, or some such gobbledygook, but not in a summary (succinct, main-line scholarship) article on the physical nature and usage of diamonds. Similarly, the article on ARCO must necessarily include a definition of that acronym. These are crucial for companies, I fully agree. But the PEO Sisterhood, and the thousands of Greek letter organizations are different: Understanding the esoteric (hidden, "reserved") meaning of the letters has no bearing whatsoever on understanding the nature of the organization from the perspective of an outsider. We protect copyright, and insist that graphics are removed if they do not meet licensing requirements. I am not implying that this PEO information is copyrighted, but only making the point that we do, in fact, hold back some information either for brevity, for copyright, or because it is "too fringe".
No, articles aren't meant to be 'kind' or 'unkind'... You are right. But an undue focus on an embarrassing but minor aspect of a biography or a company summary isn't proper either. We police biographies of living persons with a keen eye. It struck me that those who insist on disclosing this name are working overtime to cause discomfort, working beyond a disinterested intent in clarity, and do so while adding no apparent value to the casual reader. I fully disagree that the hidden name of any of these societies is necessary or should be disclosed in order to make the article complete. Jax MN (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Jax MN You are certainly entitled to your views, but I take the opposite view, because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, whether it is good or bad or embarrassing (with the exception of BLP violations, which does not apply to an organization). If you have evidence of bad faith editing on this article, please offer it(without WP:OUTING, of course)- but the motive of an edit does not necessarily eradicate the sources. Many articles have content that is probably embarrassing to the subject. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
331dot, good morning. To clarify, I am not concerned when valid (RS), newsworthy (~interesting) and germane facts (~central to the subject) are noted in these summary articles. Sometimes uncomfortable facts are necessary to understand a subject, even if embarrassing, or detrimental to the subject of the article. My position on PEO is that the 'hidden' name is not of encyclopedic value: It is not used publicly, is not part of PEO's marketing or image, is of marginal interest (save for those with an almost prurient interest, seeking to uncover its meaning), it has no connection to the legal identity of the group, and has no bearing on an observer's clear understanding of the group's purpose. Further, it appears to me that insistence on noting the esoteric words is voyeuristic, with an unhealthy willingness to harm -- a weird persistence, significantly beyond what would be considered 'curiosity'. Not implicating you, of course, since those in this discussion have already seen the purported (and anti-climactic) words already; curiosity satisfied. Jax MN (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I don't agree with that position. What you speak of is relevant to whether or not others publish such information, not us, as we just summarize what they say. At the moment, however, it seems academic as some sourcing issues have been raised(see below). 331dot (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:P.E.O._Sisterhood/Archive_1&oldid=1239374422"