Talk:Choke pear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Choke pear is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I have put in a request for a peer review. There is too much arguing over this subject.

Contents 1 Pear types 2 Original Research 3 Controversial text removed 4 Facts, anybody? 5 An interesting version 6 Don't rvt-war 7 Screws 8 OR tag 9 Woodcuts 10 Sources 11 Anal and vaginal usage 12 Template removal 13 History Channel on "The Pear of Anguish" 14 Well-documented historically

[edit] Pear types

There were also pears designed for use in the anus and vagina. Someone with a stronger stomach than mine might like to research this. -- Daran 10:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More likely the entire thing is an urban legend. Anyone got any evidence? Lao Wai 14:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Books, internet scholastic sources...same as any other method of torture's "reliability". Sherurcij 17:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Care to name a few? If it looks like an urban legend, and it quacks like an urban legend..... Lao Wai 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is your google broken? Can't you check things out just as well as any of us? Fine...

1. Torture instruments: A [bilingual] guide to the exhibition Torture Instruments form the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era
2. Criminal Medieval Museum, San Gimignano, Italy
3. http://www.bryantmcgill.com/Rare_Exotic_Collectibles/Oral,_Rectal_and_Vaginal_Torture_Pear.html
4. www.houseofdesade.org

Could it be an elaborate hoax...sure, so could the moon landings...doesn't mean we delete their entries ;) Sherurcij 17:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well no it is not. And I googled it. Still looks like an urban legend to me. Especially as the vast majority of hits cite Wikipedia. Yep, we're doing a good job of spreading the message. The first one is a source although not an academic one or a particularly reliable one. But in fact it looks like a good source. I will check. The other is not a good source and cannot reasonably be called evidence of anything. It could be an elaborate hoax because, unlike the Moon landing, the history of torture is full of hoaxes. NASA by and large is fairly truthful. People who are interested in torture are not as reliable. So instead of comparing it to the Moon Landing, compare it to, say, the Jewish Blood Libel. Especially as this is supposed to have been done by the Catholic Church. Any rational person knows that the Church has a problem with sexuality and is as unlikely to sexually assault people as punishment as force them to convert to Islam. So without evidence it fails the common sense test. Does anyone have any? Lao Wai 19:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Any rational person knows that the Church has a problem with sexuality problems with NPOV much? It doesn't fail any common-sense test, it may raise suspicion, but it certainly doesn't fail any tests. The natural name of the Museum seems to be Museo Della Tortura and appears on tripadvisor.com as a tourist attraction [1] and has an image online of the Pear in its collection [2] Sherurcij 19:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I can rephrase that if you like. The Church condemns absolutely and in no uncertain terms any sort of sexual behaviour apart from heterosexual sexual intercourse within a valid marriage which at least leaves open the possibility of conception. Therefore it is as likely that they would punish someone with a sexual assault as they would force someone to convert to Islam. Boiling them in oil would be another matter. Yes it fails the common sense test. I saw the website. It is not an academic museum. It is not a government-run museum. It may have an interest in publicity through cheap shots. I too saw an image. Notice it is *an* image. There appears to be only one of them - all of them are of the same device. Common sense ought to kick in about now. The museum may not even own this device as it seems to have a lot from private collections. What is the authenticity of this object? Who has tested it to see how old it is? What real references are there to it? Who was tortured with this device? Again it fails the common sense test. Compare and contrast with the Spanish Inquisition torture devices in the Tower of London. There is a whole room devoted to them. Of course not a single one of them is Spanish or was used by the Inquisition. They are all entirely English. But that does not change how it is referenced. Common sense suggests this is an urban legend. The amount that is written on the Inquisition is huge. The same is true of the Church and sex. If such a device existed or was used there would be a raft of documentation. Lao Wai 20:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:PearOfAnguish2.jpg and Image:PearOfAnguish1.jpg

There are two different models I could find given 2 minutes on Google, again I encourage you to look for these things yourself...it will save arguments and time. Also note that the article doesn't claim they were related to the Catholic church, merely that they were an instrument of torture. Sherurcij 21:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am rather impressed by that. I'll grant you there is more than one. I did try to look for them but found nothing that suggested they were real. Try to date them. How modern is such a device considering the mechanical complexity? Where is the evidence of them ever being used? The Web is a wonderful thing, but it is full of rubbish. There are, as far as I can see, no academic sites devoted to this. No peer-reviewed article has been found. It still fails the common-sense test and it is still undocumented. There is a lot of academic work done on punishment, on torture, on attitudes to sex in the Middle Ages. It ought to be simple to find a proper reference if this is anything other than a forgery. You may have noticed that the museum you mention also has Chastity Belts - which are undeniably a-historic and forgeries. The museum does not point this out, but presents them as real. This ought to raise a red flag as to credibility. Lao Wai 09:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There's one of these things on display at the torture museums in Prague, Amsterdam (http://photos.innersource.com/group/4924) in addition to the one mentioned in italy. It has also been featured on specials on the Travel and History channels. While this does not by any means rule out that it is a hoax, Lao Wai seems to be the only person I've ever seen calling this thing an urban legend. Some of the known pears are quite old... and the curators of these museums do not seem to doubt their authenticity.

Moreover, where is the evidence that chastity belts are undeniable forgeries?

If the article is to contain mention of the pear as a hoax, it should be as a fringe opinion, and certainly not phrased to give the impression that it is likely.

--assbag

Going back to a previous comment, and I am sure I will get banned for using this in probably the wrong thread, but chastity belts were real, however, they were not placed upon girls by knights who were going away to war. No, they were used by the women themselves to stop themselves getting sexually assaulted by men. Admittedly they came later in the middle ages and were named differently but in France and the rest of Europe they were still used up until the 1700s. Thanks to Discovery Civilization and UKTV Docs for that useless piece of Info. PS. they were either wooden or sometimes made of tin if you were rich enough.

[edit] Original Research

I am not doing original research. As a matter of fact I am doing no research at all. Nor, I might add, is anyone else here. Given I do not accept this device exists I wouldn't be expected to do any research would I? The bottom line is that tis is an encyclopedia. If there is no evidence that this device was ever used this webpage ought not to exist. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but it is a place where you should cite your sources. I have not seen any sources yet, just a shady website. If this is invention, and it looks like it to me, the page needs to be changed. Lao Wai 18:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Listen, if you don't want to contribute then why complain. This is an encyclopedia that everyone helps to edit.

Perhaps you might to have a think about why I might find that not only a silly comment, but also wrong in just about every single detail. And could you please sign your posts with three or four tildas (~) so that everyone can follow the discussion. Lao Wai 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was not me, for the record - I strongly encourage conflict since it makes the wikipedia better. But since a quick google search alone seems to support the idea this was a torture device, whether used by the Inquisition or others, any mention that it's fictitious would be considered "original research" imho. Anyhow, whoever that was put up peer review or whatever, so I guess we wait *shrugs* Sherurcij 19:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't encourage conflict, but I agree disagrement makes Wikipedia better. A quick Google search will turn up a lot of things. I searched for Chastity Belts and got 229,000 hits. Yet they never existed and are a product of the Nineteenth century romantic fantasy world. I disagree that pointing out a lack of evidence constitutes original research. It should not be too much to ask people to provide a printed source by a reputable author. This ought to have some documentation. Still as you say, I do think the pper review was a little premature, but let's see what come out of it. Oh, I should have made it clear, I did not think you made the above comments. It is not your style from what I've seen of it. Lao Wai 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be resorting to personal abuse of Lao Wai, I think I'll chime in to back him up here. We need some proper references for this, the "references" offered so far are very poor quality. People who wish to write articles on the history of mediaeval torture should be aware that pretty well all secondary sources prior to the mid-1970s, and most populist ones even after that, are gravely suspect and likely to be seriously contaminated with 19th century fictions. See Histoire de l'Inquisition en France for a classic example of this. And this taste for prurient fictions included physical objects as well as tales; many chastity belts in museums have been shown to be nineteenth century fakes, and not a single rack anywhere is believed to be authentic. So saying you have a photograph from a museum is not, by itself, a very strong argument. Some other potential interpretations include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. They are nineteenth century fakes;
2. They are genuine articles, but are much more recent than mediaeval (indeed, the workmanship and decorations look seventeenth or eighteenth century to me);
3. They are genuine mediaeval torture devices, but were not used in the way described in this article; or
4. They are genuine articles, but were medical instruments, not instruments of torture.

(Further, as Lao Wai pointed out, some of the claims made are really rather suspect. For example, the listed punishments do not jibe with other sources, where the punishment for sodomy (from after the thirteenth century) is not mutilation but death, while the usual punishment for procuring an abortion was "merely" excommunication.) Therefore I do not think it is at all unreasonable to request some properly documented evidence for the claims made in the article. Oh, and by the way, I'm not a catholic. -- Securiger 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC) I came to this wikipedia with the preconception that the pear was a torture device, but now I am convinced otherwise. Once the seed of doubt was raised I re-examined the device itself, and am now thouroughly convinced it is a tool of some sort. I agree that it appears to be seventeenth century at the earliest. I doubt that it is a medical device for some of the same reasons that I have come to doubt it is a device of torture. Surely the pear shape would be conducive to insertion into a human orifice, but only if the taper was the other way arround.The points at the end also make me doubt it is any sort of medical device, and seem to be entirely in the wrong place for a torture device as well. The points are meant to hold something, and the relatively smooth "pear" sections are meant to strech something into a smooth rounded shape- leather perhaps. To venture a guess, this device is used to make a pouch of some sort. (I've never contributed before, hope I have done it correctly)- Mythopoetic

Perhaps it is a medical or veterinary intrument, used to stretch open various orifices, wounds, surgical incisions, etc? I believe that modern surgeons have instruments that are not entirely unlike this thing. Jorge Stolfi 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial text removed

Given that the questions do not seem to have been answered, and the danger of Wikipedia becoming a major source of disinformation, I have taken the liberty to remove the quetionable text from the article, and adding a warning that the device may have had other uses.

The Pear of Anguish is a torture instrument shaped like a pear, which was inserted in the victim's mouth, rectum or vagina. Upon insertion, the handle was turned, causing the leaves to slowly separate causing extreme pain and mutilation to the victim. The insertion of the pear was dependent on the crime the victim was accused of; while slanderers and blasphemers would have their mouths mutilated, homosexuals would suffer the same fate on their anuses. It would also be used on the vaginas of women who had induced a miscarriage, or been accused of witchcraft or adultery. The pronged ends of each lobe ensured maximum damage as they tore into the throat, cervix or rupturing other tissues. Upon insertion, the handle was turned, causing the leaves to slowly separate causing extreme pain and mutilation to the victim.

I agree that the vivid details of this description strongly suggest that all this "information" is merely the product of someone's sick imagination. I propose that we do not put any of this back into the article before someone provides some really indisputable evidence (not just statements from some modern "authority").
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be clear that it is not definite...but talking about it being vetrinary seems just absurd and unsourced. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right that medical/veterinary is just a guess too, and does not make much sense. However, the torture hypothesis seems absurd too:

• Why is the bulb smooth?
• Why is the screw handle decorated?

Those details would make sense for a medical instrument, or even for a leather shoe/glove/pouch/whethever stretcher, as was suggested above.

Anyway, we should not help spread misinformation; and, from the discussion above, it seems that there are no primary sources, only modern ones that may be just guessing (and often have interest in guessing "torture"). Why should their guesses be considered more authoritative than ours?

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts, anybody?

Well, it seems that we have established three facts about this object:

Fact #1: We have no information whatsoever about the place of origin, date of manufacture, intended purpose, or atcual use of this type of object.

Fact #2: Some people have conjectured, based on no other data than its appearance, that this object may have been an instrument of torture; and it has been featured by some museums with that attribution.

Fact #3: Some people enjoy imagining all sorts of nasty ways in which this object could be used, and want to the world about such fantasies.

I propose that we update the article to reflect facts #1 and #2, and leave fact #3 out as non-notable. Comments? Jorge Stolfi 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If museums identify it as a torture instrument, that's enough to meet WP:V. There are zero reliable sources that list it as a "leatherworking tool" or vetrinary or anything else - so no, the only use listed in the article should be the one we have verifiable sources for, which are several European museums. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there are good reasons to believe that the museums are just guessing, or trusting books whose authors just guessed, that is obviously not enough. That "evidence" only supports #2 above. The claims made in the current article are still competely unsupported -- just as the guesses "leatherworking tool" or "juicer for Martian oranges". Jorge Stolfi 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I visited San Gimigniano once, as the sightseeing trip of a conference. I did not see that museum specifically, so I have no opinion on its trustworthiness. However, the town does live on tourism, so we should be cautious. Jorge Stolfi 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PPS. Note that WP:V says credible sources. Jorge Stolfi 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in Niagara Falls, commonly held to be the third-most kitchy-touristy place in North America (After Reno/Vegas) - but I don't think it's good for Wikipedia to start "guessing" which museums are reliable and which aren't. If there's evidence that a museum isn't reliable, let me know. But you can't tell me the "date of manufacture" of a rack, yet we can still say that it's a torture instrument. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, as another editor mentioned, the decoration on the handle suggests that it was manufactured rather recently, perhaps 17th - 18th century. That makes the torture hypothesis less likely. Moreover, if the museums label it "medieval", but that turns out to be completely wrong, that is enough to invalidate anything else that the museum says about the thing. Jorge Stolfi 15:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What "proof" do you have that the handle is "perhaps 17th - 18th century", that it's ornate? You're now trying to discount what several museum curators believe, based on your jpeg analysis? Don't be ridiculous, there's WP:NOR for a reason Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had "proof" I would not write "perhaps", right? Anyway, the WP:NOR rule does not allow us to cut any claim found in the net and just paste it into Wikipedia, without thinking. We must keep our brain turned on, and always try to assess whether the source is reliable or not. Given the apparent lack of direct evidence, I would say that those museum labels are just guesses, and therefore no more reliable than anyone else's guess. The current article is definitely misleading because it omits apparent fact #1 above, which readers would certainly need to know; and presents someone's guesses as if they were facts.Jorge Stolfi 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As for WP:NOR, please re-read the statement about the prongs, and think about it. Granted, if the instrument were used as described, those prongs may do some damage, perhaps, depending on how the instrument was inserted. However, the prongs are definitely not placed or shaped to "ensure maximum damage"!
Another question you may want to ponder is why the maker went to all the trouble of using three lobes. A two-lobed instrument would be just as effective for torture as a three-lobed one, and much easier to build. In fact, the three-lobed instrument seems rather impractical for using in the mouth (try to think of how it would fit there).
The more I think, the less sense the torture story makes. It all smells like a big truckload of bullshit. Methinks Wikipedia deserves better than that. Jorge Stolfi 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we just say, "According to so-and-so museum...", and provide inline citations for every assertion. There is room on Wikipedia for using common sense in evaluating sources, but if the only assertions ever made about these things are that they are torture implements, then we can't ignore that completely. Remember, we don't ultimately have to work out whether anything is true or not on Wikipedia; for cases like this, all we care about is creating a compendium of human knowledge at the current time, which may or may not match up with the truth. — Matt Crypto 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is poor, and the description gratuitous. However the device is regarded as an implement of torture by most works dicussing it, and this should be prominently featured in a Wikipedia article about it. I'll update the page with some of these references (other than the few discussed at the top of this page) shortly. Tomyumgoong 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting version

I have read a few references in French (search for "Poire d'angoisse"). Got a few stories, but still no real sources. Two interesting things:

1. The (late) stories I have seen so far say it was used only in the mouth, chiefly to prevent prisoners from talking and/or to cause discomfort rather than real damage.
2. The following page [3] gives a very different twist:

Avaler des poires d'angoisse
Avoir de grands déplaisirs.
Angoisse est le nom d'une localité en Dordogne qui produisait dès le moyen âge une poire dure et âpre, mauvaise au goût lorsqu' on la consommait crue mais très appréciée comme fruit à cuire, à sécher ou comme poire à cidre (dès le XIIIe siècle). L'expression "avaler des poires d'angoisse" se retrouve dès 1245 dans la région d'Albi sous la forme "pera d'engoyssa".
La consommation crue de ces poires étant pratiquement impossible la population de l'époque associa par homonymie les poires d'Angoisse à la peur de les manger et de les avaler donc à l'angoisse dans le sens propre du terme: l'anxiété, la douleur morale liée à la crainte. Ainsi, dès le milieu du Xve siècle, naît l'expression "avaler des poires d'angoisses" pour signifier "éprouver de très grands déplaisirs".
Par la suite, la "poire d'angoisse" désignera un objet métallique (quasiment de torture) en forme de poire que l'on plaçait de force dans la bouche du prisonnier pour le baillonner. On imagine aisément l'angoisse et la peur ultime du malheureux qui étouffait, suait, souffrait et n'arrivait plus à avaler sa salive.
Si de nos jours la notion de désagrément est restée, les soucis désignés par la locution n'atteignent pas les sommets de souffrance de ces hommes.

If this article is to be trusted, then, the expression poire d'Angoisse ("Angoisse pear") and avaler des poires d'Angoisse ("swallow Angoisse pears"), as well as the (mis)understanding of Angoisse as angoisse="anguish" all predate the (alleged) invention of the (hypothetical) torture instrument, and have nothing to do with torture. While this does not prove or disprove anything, it opens up the possibility that the "torture" instrument was built (or borrowed from another innocent use) to fit the expression.

Much as one could today build or procure a nasty-looking contraption and exhibit it in a roadside museum as "a medieval tongue-twister"...
Jorge Stolfi 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't rvt-war

I'm removing the reference to the Pope, unless somebody can provide better than an amateur website indicating it was ever used by the Inquisition/church Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If any word was elilinated which has an illogical, misleading or even absurd etymology, there wouldn't be enough left to write an avergae sentence. That's not even an excuse. Even if it were never used by the inquisition (that's unclear at this point) the term was coined, whether truethfull or as a term of abuse by anti-papists, and in either case needs to be accounted for, not ignored. As long as such things aren't wronly presneted (alledgedly certainly leaves enough doubt) there's no problem. (By the way, I have the greatest respect for the papacy and help spread the message that he real inquisition was far better then its typical secular counterpart of contemporary (in)justice) Fastifex 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to follow this. If it is unclear whether the Inquisition used it or not this article should not exist - my position as it happens. It is spurious I think. But in any case, the onus of proof lies on the person making the claim. You are making this one so prove it. If you can't, and I expect you can't, it oughtn't be included. Lao Wai 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Lao Wai, the onus is on you to indicate that it was used by the Inquisition, or that anybody other than a few website authors ever called it the Pope's Pear. If Fox's Book of Martyrs, Martyr's Mirror, or any similar established book refers to it as that, that's good enough...but a single website really isn't, imho Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screws

Don't know if this argument was still going on, so I thought I'd lay it to rest. The Medieval Underworld by Andrew McCall has woodcuts and descriptions of the Pear of Anguish in use, as does the Illustrated Guide to Torture and Execution. The mechanical principles it uses are simply a screw mechanism similar to a hand drill, and I really hope nobody's about to suggest the hand drill wasn't around during the medieval period. Also, there are authentic pears on display in several museums, including in Prague and London.

I'll have a look at McCall. I am happy to suggest the screw was not around in the medieval period - in fact metal screws were not invented until after 1400 and not common until the Industrial Revolution. How do you know they are authentic? The Tower of London is full of fakes. Lao Wai 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to screw, metal screws used as fasteners did not appear in Europe until the 1400s. (emphasis mine) This article make no mention of use as fasteners; it is referring to the use of a threaded metal screw as an implement of torture. I don't find it hard to believe that use for torture may have preceded use for fastening. Kasreyn 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look at McCall and I couldn't see any pictures. Nor was it mentioned in the index nor did a quick read suggest it was mentioned at all - not under prostitution or homosexuality. So where is this reference? Lao Wai 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I have just done the same. No pears. And a distinct lack throughout of any reference to cunningly-created mechanical devices, however inserted. The Land 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR tag

I have put on "original research" tag, given that there apperently still are unverifiable claims here. Medico80 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You know to simply find the use of this instrument and to finally prove to you that is was real why not go and look up the records of people tortured. I should have what was used on them as a sidenote.

[edit] Woodcuts

I'd like to see those just to verify if they are real or fake.

[edit] Sources

William Hazlitt (2005-10-01). "My First Acquaintaince with Poets", in Duncan Wu: Romanticism: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing, 776. ISBN 1405120851.  

"A choke-pear was used by robbers: it was made of iron in the shape of a pear, and would be placed into the mouths of their victims. With the turn of a key, it would enlarge so that it could not be removed." — Note that the footnote is a modern editorial explanation of the metaphorical use in the actual text, describing a work of scholarship as a "metaphysical choke-pear". Now see:

John Ogilvie (1883). The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language. The Century co., 462.  

"1. A kind of pear that has a rough astringent taste, and is swallowed with difficulty, of which contracts the parts of the mouth. Hence — 2. Anything that stops the mouth; an unanswerable argument; an aspersion or sarcasm by which a person is put to silence"

William Dwight Whitney (1889). The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language. The Century co..  

A choke-pear is simply described as the opposite of a swallow-pear, i.e. a fruit that cannot be swallowed.

Note the dates on the above. Interestingly, the only sources I've found so far that describe this as an actual mechanism, rather than simply as a fruit that cannot be swallowed or an argument that cannot be answered, all seem to date from the 20th and 21st centuries. Uncle G 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that the 1898 Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has a listing for choke-pear: "Robbers in Holland at one time made use of a piece of iron in the shape of a pear, which they forced into the mouth of their victim. On turning a key, a number of springs thrust forth points of iron in all directions, so that the instrument of torture could never be taken out except by means of the key." No indication that the object really existed, of course, but proof at least that the idea of a mechanism is not new. William Pietri 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anal and vaginal usage

The only sources that claim anal or vaginal usage for the choke-pear are modern, current, websites. The sources which give the article its significance are the 17th and 19th century references to the device's use in the mouth by robbers, not the miscellany of people who are willing to speculate today on its use in the cunt by the Spanish Inquisition. Unless you have firm sources for non-oral uses of this device, please do not insist on giving such speculation undue prominence in the article. The Land 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting once again, as pointed out back in 2005 on this talk page, that most of those web sites (such as this one and this one) cite the earlier, wholly unsourced, versions of this Wikipedia article as their sources. There is not a single book prior to 2001 (the year of Migliorini's exhibition, note) that even mentions a "vaginal pear", and only two (non-fiction) since that do, neither of which provide any names, dates, or places, let alone references to earlier literature. The idea that a supposed 16th century instrument of torture has gone wholly undocumented for almost 400 years beggars belief, especially given that (as we can see from this article), there has been plenty of documentation written and published for choke pears, both fanciful and real, over the past several centuries. It is far more believable that this is a 20th century, or even (given the dates) 21st century, hoax, perpetuated onto the World Wide Web by earlier versions of this very article and traceable to a couple of devices in museum exhibitions that have been labelled by a curator without any historical primary or secondary source evidence to back that label up. There is zero either reliable or useful source material on "vaginal pears". Uncle G 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template removal

I feel the article has been largely re-written since the Original Research tag was put onto it, and would support removing the tag. The historical validity of the device is certainly still in question, but I don't think there is anything indicating original research by WPians present in the article. If there are no complaints, I'll remove the template on Tuesday. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but what in this is not original research? Lao Wai 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Channel on "The Pear of Anguish"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re5ewE5dHpQ

I recently asked them about it, on their site, and they said that they made sure they'd gotten the facts straight. They mentioned several times that they had seen woodcuts of the Pear in use, and that they were extremely rare for the time and nature.

Perhaps this subject is not as bogus as we think...VonV 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well-documented historically

This is crazy; it's well-documented, and even if it's not historical, there's enough sources mentioning it that the article should cover them. As for sources, the most recent OED entry for pear says

7b. An instrument of torture made of curved metal panels, roughly pear-shaped when closed but capable of being opened up gradually. Sometimes more fully pear of confession. Cf. CHOKE-PEAR n. 2. Now hist.

1630 Pathomachia III. iv. 29 Vnlesse thou confesse,..the Scottish Bootes, the Dutch Wheele, the Spanish Strappado, Linnen Ball, and Peare of Confession shall torment thee. 1990 J. A. AMATO Victims & Values i. 9 This diverse array of instruments..were used by secular and religious authorities as well. They included a vaginal pear (an opening device), a chastity belt, [etc.]. 1990 J. AYTO Glutton's Glossary 213 Medieval torturers devised a particularly gruesome tool known in English as the pear of confession. 1997 Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch (Nexis) 16 Feb. F4 One guesses that some readers may learn more than they want to about the strappado, the "pear", and the Judas chair. --Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)