This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P.E.O. Sisterhood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
maru (talk) contribs 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P.E.O. Sisterhood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
maru (talk) contribs 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)