Talk:P.E.O. Sisterhood

Sources for "Secret meaning"

I thought that I'd ask whether anyone has looked at the references listed for the section. I know that they don't have to be online, but still it seems thin.

• Handbook of Secret Organizations - Whalen. All that is there is '...but it is thought to stand for "Protect Each Other".'
• Fraternal Organizations - Schmidt. The end of the section states the present report is largely based on Whalen's Handbook of Secret Organizations. Since this is based on the previous, to me it should *not* be included as a reference.
• "Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary: A Guide to Acronyms, Abbreviations, Contractions, Alphabetic Symbols, and Similar Condensed Appellations", while I haven't looked at the entry seems to me to be very much a Tertiary Source, and I'd be surprised if the section on P.E.O was large enough to give where they got it from.

So for me, at this point, I'd be in favor of dropping it due to the inferior quality references.Naraht (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is, of course, a different matter than the above discussion. If the sources are inadequate, the information should stay out- it shouldn't stay out to help this organization keep its secrets. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a different matter.Naraht (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As the organization and its members prefer not to reveal the original meaning, it's hardly surprising that any sources that make some appearance of doing so are at arm's length and may therefore look a bit "thin". That is why we intentionally began the contested sentence with the cautious and qualified phrasing "Sources outside of P.E.O. have suggested ...". With that qualification, all three sources seem like the sort of reasonably solid publications that we would be perfectly happy to accept in other contexts (though I allow there may be a case for removing Schmidt/Babchuk, as it is expressly parroting Whalen). Bonk & Dear's Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary is a tertiary source, but it is a scholarly reference work from a respected educational publisher (Gale), that reached its 32nd edition in 2003 (our citation was of the 29th edition of 2001). I have consulted it in the past, though I don't recall how far it goes in citing sources. As long as we make clear that the expansion of the initialism is in no way "official" or definitive, but merely one documented suggestion, I really don't think that adequacy of sources should be an issue. GrindtXX (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)