Talk:P.E.O. Sisterhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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 "Protect Each Other", 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 "Protect Each Other (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Dead link

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)

[edit] 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, P------ E--- O---- 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/2E/e/Talk%7EP.E.O._Sisterhood_3f9d.html"