Talk:Thuggee/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Joko2468 (talk · contribs) 11:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Amir Ghandi (talk · contribs) 03:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Joko2468: thank you so much for bringing this article to GAN. The topic of the thuggee is particularly special to me because when I was a young boy, who had recently learned to read, I read a World History Encyclopedia in my mother tongue (Persian) and one of the topics that came up in that book was Colonial-era Indian zealots sacrificing people in honour of Kali, with an illustration of the goddess. And this was about 2010s, so even as far as ten years ago, the Kali-worshipping angle was prevalent in global historiography even in my own country. Therefore, I am very happy to see this topic in a such a well-researched shape, and hopefully, one day it would be on the front page as today's featured article.

I already have had a preliminary reading of th whole article. I did find one typo (despatch instead of dispatch). But overall, the quality of the prose was satisfactory. I do have some concerns over the amount of quotes used throughout the article specially in the early parts, but I'll leave that to later. I will begin my review first by reviewing images and sources (including spotchecks) and then we will go onto the prose and manuel of style. Amir Ghandi (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that means a lot to me-- and thank you for taking this up, I know it's a behemoth of a subject. Unfortunately the Britannica entry is still no better (well-organized confederacy of professional assassins... His chief agent, Captain William Sleeman... succeeded so well in eliminating the evil). I found the article and the wider topic area in an awful state with a few cursory sentences on the revisionism bandaided onto the colonial-era narrative (all of which was quite disengenuously sourced). It's been fascinating to research, looking forward to your feedback.

I'm currently reorganising the In popular culture section from list format into prose, which came up in a previous GA review on Sleeman. Should be done today but you may want to link to the article version you're spotchecking and I'll notify you when I make my changes so it doesn't risk confusing your work. I intend to go back over and verify everything cited to Wagner (2012), Lloyd, and Rawat & Mukherjee-- I've already done this with most of the citations and amended some errors/ overciting. "Despatch" is actually the British spelling of "dispatch", though the American spelling is certainly becoming more popular. Joko2468 (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Good call on reorganising 'In Popular culture' section. That was one of the things I wanted to bring it up. And I'll add a Template:Not a typo to despatch if anyone in the future made the same mistake as me. In fact, in the body of the article itself there are several alternate ways of spelling Thugs beside Thags, like T,ugs. Have you considered adding sic to them? Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Great idea thank you. Joko2468 (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've finished reorganising the In popular culture section and added an introductory paragraph. I also added the sic template-- I'm not too familiar with this so please let me know if I should amend it. Joko2468 (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Very good work on the section and thank you for including the sic templates. I have an slight inclination towards [sic] being placed inside quotation marks (like 't,ugs [sic]'), however, I'll leave that to you if you want to implement it or not.

Also, I need to do some research on Wikipedia policy on images, so expect the image review at worst case scenario by tomorrow. Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

Images are generally well-licensed, I have listed those that may need some reconsideration, feel free to correct me on my assumptions:

• File:Map of india 1827.jpg and File:India map thuggee.png Published in Locknow, India. I would say needs PD-India
• File:William-Henry-Sleeman.jpg Is it possible that the actual source is from here?
• File:Thuggee strangling.jpg Also PD-India
• File:Group of Thugs (From a Photograph).jpg What's the rationale behind using cc-by-sa-4.0? Also, more alerting, the source link to owlcation led me to nowhere (404 error)
• File:Indiana jones exhibition 03.jpg Visible watermarks are discouraged but not prohibited. Ok for GA

Now, the real dealbreaker is that none of the article's images (at least to the extent that I investigated) have alternative captions.

I'm afraid you'd have to add alt-texts to all images in the article. Jut short sentences would be fine though.

Okay never mind, I had a discussion with some other users and alt capts are not a requirement for GA.

On the gallery section:

• First of all, you should think of mending the cluster from In Popular Culture section images with the gallery that has caused it to bend sideways and leave one side of the section completely empty (at least in my version of wikipedia). See if you can mediate this by either moving the images around a bit or by just removing one of them.
• Now onto the gallery itself. According to the guidelines: " A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images... galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article." And furthermore, the gallery should be appropriately titled and have a general 'theme of the gallery'.
• This is my problem with the current state of the gallery. It feels like a random collection of images without a certain theme to knit them together or anything independant point to illuster. Four of the images are about Paton's illustrations, and they in fact have a theme about them, namely, the portrayal of the thuggee by the English art. However, other images feel trivial and niche, most eggresiously among them being the Anti-garotte overcoat one (Pickaxe wielding thug and File:Kalee-poojah of the thugs 1858.jpg and File:Group of Thugs (From a Photograph).jpg are also in this category). File:Thuggee alleged burial site.png is another good image that contributes to the whole theme of British thought of the Thugs. Overall, I think you should remove some of these images and cater the remaining to a general overarching theme. Of course, I am open to more discussion. Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I see thank you, I've removed the Mola Ram headpiece image and expanded one of the paragraphs slightly. And thanks for explaining Gallery sections (I thought that might need fixing), I've removed File:Kalee-poojah of the thugs 1858.jpg, File:Group of Thugs (From a Photograph).jpg, and File:London garrote panic cartoon.jpg. I've also moved the information on branding to the History section and removed the illustration (it was a bit lackluster). I titled the gallery Colonial-era portrayals of the Thugs-- given that Paton's watercolours were drawn by an Indian artist, I don't know if I can put 'British' in the title. I think 'Pickaxe wielding thug' is relevant to this? I also added a sentence on the School of Industry lithograph to add context to that portrayal and bring it more into the theme. Happy to discuss. Joko2468 (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I amended the copyright tags and I'll get around to doing some alt captions-- I only found out what they were for recently. Joko2468 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the good work, @Joko2468. I am quite satisfied with what you have done with the gallery section now. It clearly narrates a development in the Colonial-era thought on the thugs that otherwise could not have been well-explored by the prose, exactly as the guidelines laid out. I'll move my attention onto the source review and spotchecks, and again, it may take until tomorrow. Cheers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll go back over the citations to Wagner (2012), Lloyd, and Rawat & Mukherjee now (from memory there's at least one case of WP:CLOP). This shouldn't take much more than an hour, I'll reply here when it's done so I don't risk confusing your work. Joko2468 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Done, I amended an instance of WP:CLOP, removed something that was misinterpreted as being in Lloyd's voice, and fixed some page numbers (a few other tweaks as well). Since one of the refs was removed, the numbering has changed. Joko2468 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Source Review

As I can see, most of your journal and priodical sources do not have ISSN identifiers. Now, DOI and/or other identifiers are optional, but generally it is good to have them (at least for the sake of consistancy, as in this current state, some sources have them and some do not.) If you are not sure where you can find the identifiers, take a look at Worldcat which also provides the OOCL identifier beside other identifiers.

Also, since you have chosen to include publcation plcaces and publishers for your book sources, you must do the same for your journal sources. Again, worldcat is very helpful in this as it also provides original city names and publishers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ditto for your 'Modern scholarship' subsection in Further Reading.

Thanks, I'll add DOI and ISBN numbers to the sources. However, at WP:HOWCITE Place of publication is present under what to typically include in citations for books but not for journal articles. I'll do the alt captions now as well. Joko2468 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that ISBN is for books and ISSN is explicitly for periodicals like journals. Amir Ghandi (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Should I include both DOI and ISSN for articles? Would just the DOI be enough? Joko2468 (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

DOI would be completely acceptable. It is just important to have one of these identifiers employed consistently.

• Why is Kumar (2004) doesn't follow the established SFN format?
• Ditto for Sharma (2001), Humes 2010, Lunt 2020, Chakraborty 2019, Chakraborty 2021b, Browning 2025, and even more of this sort as we approach the late parts of the article. I don't mind the website citations or the old book citations, but we need a clear rationale for the break in the format for these secondary sources here. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've added source identifiers and alt captions. Habib (1963) doesn't seem to have an identifier-- the same seems to be true of the books pre-1970 (there doesn't seem to be SBNs for these?). For some reason the ISSN for Rawat & Mukherjee isn't parsing.

  I also moved sources to the bibliography-- currently the only utilised source cited in the ref template is the Indian Police Commission (happy to move this to the bibliography, the authorship and title just makes for a clumsy sfn template). The others are signposting primary sources for curious readers (such as Ramaseeana or Kaye (1853)), is that acceptable? The bullet points contain sources that were cited in the main source, except for Sharma (2001) which was only used to establish Shakespeare's first name. Joko2468 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  And Parkes (1850) is utilised in the ref template as well, given it's a superfluous primary source it didn't feel right to move it to the bibliography. Joko2468 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Since Habib (1963) has a direct link to the article itself it's fine to leave it without identifiers. Same for Rawat and Mukherjee. And your current usage of the primary sources does not come into conflicts with the policy at WP:PRIMARY. The source formatting is quite satisfactory as of now, so I'll move to spotchecks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Spotcheck

This table lists 25 random passages with 2+ citations from throughout the article (22.1% of 113 total passages with 2+ citations). These passages contain 55 inline citations (11.8% of 466 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy to provide quotations (I currently have almost all of these sources open). Joko2468 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be really fabulous, @Joko2468. Thank you. I'm mostly looking for WP:OVERCITE that's hy I have chosen passages more than two citations. Thanks in advance. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see, there are a number of places where I've used a couple of citations to establish more support for an exceptional claim. Given that revisionist interpretations can differ, I've felt the need to demonstrate some measure of consensus for a lot of the details in the Culture and beliefs and Notable groups sections-- I've put these in magenta, happy to discuss. In red are citations that can be removed outright, in blue ones to be added (this is just so I don't forget).

Quotations for citations spotcheck.

19a and 20a: The earliest generally accepted use of the word dates to 1350 and it was sometimes used in precolonial India, in the same sense as the later British usage, to refer to highway robbers that deceived and murdered their victims.

• Etymology of the word ‘thug’... But a history of the Delhi sultan Firoz Shah II, dating to 1350, which contains the oldest generally accepted use of the word... (Dash, 2005: p.298)
• I believe I have demonstrated that in pre-colonial times the indigenous use of the word thug did sometimes fully correspond with the later British use of that term; that is as meaning a robber, who deceived, murdered and plundered travellers on the roads (Wagner, 2007: p.30)

19d and 26d: According to a 14th-century chronicle by Ziauddin Barani, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din Khalji deported 1,000 arrested 'thags' from Delhi to Bengal sometime between 1290 and 1296, however the chronicle makes no mention of what they were arrested for.

• But a history of the Delhi sultan Firoz Shah II, dating to 1350, which contains the oldest generally accepted use of the word, makes no mention of the crimes of which its ‘thugs’ were accused, noting simply that no fewer than 1,000 of these criminals were betrayed to the authorities by one of their own number, and that at some point between 1290 and 1296 the entire group was rounded up and deported down the Jumna to Bengal. (Dash, 2005: p.298)
• Similar claims have been made for the biography of the Muslim emperor Firoz Shah Tughlaq, which mentions how the Sultan of Delhi, Jalal uddin Firz Khilji, in 1290 expelled a 1000 ‘thags’ from Delhi.10 The lack of detail in this brief description makes it impossible to say whether the ‘thags’ in question were murderers and robbers or perhaps just harmless cheats and swindlers. (Wagner, 2007: p.26)

55 and 56: At the trial in Mainpuri in November, he demonstrated for the court how the gang strangled their victims, though the trial descended into a farce as Hussain repeatedly revised his testimony regarding the extent of his involvement with the gang.

• as the first thug trial with Hussain as the prime witness came under way in Mainpuri... On 9 November 1810, the four prisoners, Udjbah, Dundhar, Ramzanee and Dhondhee, were brought before Judge Brooke at the Session of Circuit, accused of various murders as thugs – a charge they all denied.14 Ghulam Hussain was the key witness in the trial... he even demonstrated how the thugs strangled, using a person at the court as a model victim... Hussain then addressed the judge and said that since the thugs were now arguing with him, he would disclose the details of a further 14 murders they had committed. From then on the trial turned into a farce as Hussain continued to change his testimony over the course of the five days the trial lasted... In between changing his deposition as regards the degree of his own involvement with the thugs... (Wagner 2007: pp.52-54)
• Furthermore, Ghulam successively increased the number of killings he had been involved in each time he was cross-examined by Perry. (Lloyd, 2005: p.5) This could probably be removed, it was only there to demonstrate that the core facts were neutral between Wagner and Lloyd, who hold divergent views on the revisionism.

84 and 85: Up until this point, efforts to combat thuggee had been led by local authorities and the case marked the first time the central government intervened to ensure that the Thugs were convicted and to develop a judicial argument that saw Thugs treated in the same vein as pirates.

• The Government’s reply is significant and really mark the beginning of a much more centralised and directed campaign against thuggee.14 The operations against the thugs were no longer to be localised... "it appears to His Lordship in Council that they may be considered like Pirates"... the Governor General ordered that the leaders and stranglers of the gang were to be executed, while the remainder, though equally guilty, should be handed lesser sentences... This was a remarkable instance of the Government actively getting involved in the details of the committal and conviction of prisoners (Wagner 2007: pp.199-200)
• Borthwick argued that no additional proof was required to pass sentence on the entire gang... Government accepted the adequacy of the sentence... "it appears that they may be considered like Pirates, to be placed outside the pale of social law" (Singha, 1993: pp.119-120)

98 and 99: Agent for the Saugor and Nerbudda Territories Francis Curwen Smith submitted a plan in November that he had written with Sleeman and which called for an officer to be appointed Superintendent for the Suppression of Thugs, who would send Thugs to be tried in the Saugor and Nerbudda courts.

• But Sleeman’s superior F. C. Smith, the Agent of Sagar and Narbada... On 19 November 1830 Smith submitted a ‘Plan for the eventual destruction of the association of Thugs which have of late infested Central India’, which he and Sleeman had worked out... " An officer should be appointed Superintendent for the Suppression of Thugs whose sole task it was to seize, try and punish the thugs... The Superintendent should commit the thugs for trial before the Agent of the Sagar and Narbada territories (Wagner, 2007: pp.203, 209)
• Francis Curwen Smith, the Governor General’s new agent in the central provinces... (Dash, 2005: p.143)

105 and 106a: From 1830 onwards, the Government ordered Thugs sentenced to imprisonment to be branded with the Godna on a part of the body exposed to view, typically the forehead.

• Subsequently the Government ordered thugs sentenced to imprisonment to be branded with the ‘goodna’ (an Indian type of tattoo) on part of the body exposed to view... The Government ordered that: ‘their name and the words “Convicted Thug” may be stamped on the back or shoulders of all sentenced to seven years imprisonment and upwards, a deviation from the Regulations fully warranted by the enormity of the crime of Thuggism which justly places those who practise it beyond the pale of social law.’ Swinton to F. C. Smith, 4 Aug. 1830, BC, F/4/1251/50480(2), APAC. (Wagner, 2007: pp.204, 263)
• Convicted Thugs were tattooed with the details of their crimes... Tattoos were generally applied to prisoners’ foreheads (Dash, 2005: pp.168–169) This is a non-paginated interleaf composed of illustrations.

115b and 116: Dacoity was added to Sleeman's responsibilities in 1838 as thuggee activity had been effectively suppressed and, in 1839, he coined the term Megpunnaism to refer to the murder of impoverished parents to attain their children for sale, portraying it as a new form of thuggee.

• The discovery of river-thugs led to the passing of the act, but soon dathura-thugs, Megpunna-thugs and jogis attracted the attention of Sleeman and his officers. By 1836 the organised thug gangs that could be traced back to Sindouse had practically ceased to exist... In 1838 the task of putting down dacoity was added to Sleeman’s responsibilities... (Wagner, 2007: p.215)
• W.H. Sleeman, Commissioner for Thuggee and Dacoity, arrived at the ‘discovery’ of yet another form of thuggee, for which he coined the term Megpunnaism, the murder of poor parents to acquire their children for sale... Report on the system of Megpunnaism, 1839... In 1838 dacoity operations were added to the Thuggee Department (Singha, 1998: pp.161, 220) In some sources the addition of dacoity to his responsibilities is presented as being 1839 because this is when a formal decree merged the two positions.

132 and 133: The archives of the Thuggee and Dacoity Department were repeatedly cited to evidence the existence of 'criminal tribes' and the department was a key player in the presentation of a crime plague perpetrated by itinerant and semi-nomadic communities.

• The archives of his Thuggee and Dacoity Department were later repeatedly cited as prima facie evidence for the existence of criminal tribes... (Piliavsky, 2015: p.339)
• ... petition the Government of India for a national law to deal with what was by then being represented (particularly by the Department of Thagi and Dakaiti) as a crime plague perpetrated by itinerant and semi-nomadic communities... (Brown, 2003: p.211)

142 and 143a: Beginning in the 1950s, the colonial-era representation of thuggee as a pan-Indian fraternity of ritual stranglers has come under sustained and diverse scholarly criticism.

• Indeed, the conventional British representation that held sway for more than a century has come under such sustained and diverse scholarly criticism in recent decades... (Humes, 2010: pp.1294–1295)
• Whether those who killed and plundered travellers can appropriately be described as a pan-Indian fraternity of ritual stranglers is obviously doubtful, but we do not have to accept the colonial representation of Thuggee... (Wagner, 2012: p.145)
• I've missed out a citation to Dash (2005: p.xi): But, beginning in the 1950s, historians began to reassess the portrayal of the Thugs...

148b, 175, and 176: her work has received criticism from scholars that view it as being "old-fashioned and inconsistent".

• Reviewing an old-fashioned and inconsistent work on thugs by Martine van Woerkens, Satadru Sen wrote... (Subrahmanyam, 2009).
• Lloyd (2006: p.6) is used to signpost to this review, which says: In spite of its many strengths, there are serious analytical problems with van Woerkens's study... and a search for essential difference and cultural peculiarity that should have ended with the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism (Vintage, 1979)... Her awareness that Sleeman was constructing the thug as a pan-Indian criminal does not stop her from accepting the criminal identity of "pan-Indian communities living on the margins of society" (39) or from speculating that an old woman engaged in the tattooing of convicted thugs was herself "a Thug elder" (86).
• Furthermore, I will discuss Martine van Woerkens's The Strangled Traveler: Colonial Imaginings and the Thugs of India from 2002, which is the most recent contribution to the study of thuggee and which stands for a resurrection of the colonial tradition... The Strangled Traveler, however, is also a very confusing book in which the argumentation is contradictory and the different chapters appear to subvert each other, and thus many good points are lost if not actually negated. (Wagner, 2004: pp.934, 945)

185a and 186a: Though thugs would sometimes murder for modest sums, they preferred wealthy victims and surveilled travellers to ascertain their wealth.

• It has been noticed that the thugs would murder ‘even for small pickings’, but it must be obvious that robbers preferred wealthy victims... (Wagner, 2007: p.114)
• Scouts or spies (tilha, from thilna, to advance, penetrate; bykureea, from bekar, without work, idle) checked to see if the road was free and brought back information about travelers... (van Woerkens, 2002: p.120)

196 and 197: There were no eyewitnesses since every member of the party was murdered and little circumstantial evidence as the act was done by stealth, while items such as a rumāl, scarf, dhoti, wrap, cord, or even a knife and sword were likely to be found on innocent travellers.

• There were no eyewitness, for everyone in the party was murdered... Circumstantial evidence was elusive because the deed was done by stealth... But the basic problem was that of finding the means to distinguish the thug from the ordinary traveller. Items like a rumal, scarf, dhoti, a wrap, a cord, or even a knife or a sword were likely to be found on the most innocuous travellers... (Singha, 1993: pp.109, 116)
• Wagner (2007, pp.159–160) can be removed.

211 and 212: According to Cynthia Ann Humes, Thug testimony only rarely referred to Bhavani, mostly in response to Sleeman's leading questions, and the Islamic concept of fate was invoked most often.

• In the responses of men said to be Thugs, the Islamic concept of fate, iqbal, is invoked the most often. The Hindu goddess Bhava¯nı¯ is only rarely referred to, and almost always in response to Sleeman’s leading questions. (Humes, 2003: p.159)
• Perris (2025: p.212) can be removed-- I added this recently, thinking from memory that I'd plagiarised his analysis of Humes. Perris also mistakes Bhavani with Kali.

209b and 210b: Some Muslim approvers disowned Bhavani upon turning King's evidence, having identified her with Fatima or as an instrument of Allah, and therein maintained their belief in monotheism.

• Paton’s Muslim approvers also discussed their worship of ‘Bhowanee’, whom they had disowned after being captured and becoming approvers. The Muslim thugs had constructed a religious universe in which the Hindu goddess had been assimilated as no more than a spirit subservient to the one true god (Allah)... On a similar note, some of Sleeman’s Muslim approvers identified ‘Bhowanee’ with Fatima, Mohammed’s daughter... To Paton’s Muslim approvers, the worship of ‘Bhowanee’ was exclusively associated with the practice of thuggee and thus very much functionalised, while they retained their Muslim faith in a single god... (Wagner, 2007: p.141)
• Van Woerkens (2002: p.150) can be removed, the material is descriptive of the interviews and doesn't need further support as an interpretation.

186b, 246, and 247: The thugs were also commonly and interchangeably referred to by themselves and fellow villagers as sepoys (meaning 'soldier' or 'retainer') and borrowed military terminology in their use of jemadar to mean gang leader and subedar for when several bands joined together.

• In order to be able to gather a gang of Thugs, the leader had to be an accomplished strangler... all these things enable a man to get around him a few who will consent to give him the fees and title of Jemadar’”... At times several bands could join together under the leadership of a great chief, who was then given the title of subehdar... Jamadar and subehdar are words borrowed from native military terminology. (Van Woerkens, 2002: p.120)
• Although the term ‘thug’ was used by the inhabitants of Parihara, a number of other designations applied to the thugs imply a military connection. The word most commonly used was sepoy, which literally means ‘soldier’ but which was also used in the meaning of ‘retainer’ or ‘subaltern’... The use of the military denominations of jemadar and subedar, and the reference to certain thugs as ‘privates’, again implies a military connection in the organisation of the gangs. (Wagner, 2007: pp.89, 110)
• The Thugs themselves believed that their methods set them apart from other robbers and made them special — an opinion apparently shared by their fellow villagers, who sometimes referred to them by the honourable term sipahee (soldier)... Each of the 200 or more gangs scattered across India was organized along broadly similar lines, being recruited and commanded by leaders known as subadars and jemadars — titles that aped those awarded to native officers in the Company's armies... The title of subadar was the grandest to which a Thug could aspire. It seems to have been awarded by general acclamation, and was only bestowed upon the most respected and experienced Thugs — men capable of leading and coordinating the actions of several gangs. A jemadar, on the other hand, was simply the self-appointed leader of a single band... (Dash, 2005: pp.35, 66–67)

248b and 250b: Girls were married off to the sons or relatives of their adoptee, thus avoiding the costs of a dowry, while boys tended to go to childless parents in the context of high infant mortality rates.

• Girls were inevitably married to the sons or relatives of the thug who adopted them, who thus saved a great deal of money that would otherwise have been spent on dowry. A boy on the other hand was an object of pride and adoption thus provided a solution for childless parents during a period of time when the mortality rate of infants was high (Wagner, 2007: p.107)
• The boys were made to serve their adoptive fathers until they were old enough to be inducted into the Thug gangs; initiation made them eligible to receive a share of the loot, which added to the wealth of their adoptive family. Girls stayed at home, assisting the Thugs’ women with domestic work until they could make a profitable marriage. (Dash, 2005: p.86)

268 and 269: During the 1830s, British officials propagated a representation of Thugs as hereditary cult-oriented criminals, which allowed them to win the case for special procedures, and thuggee as an all-India conspiracy.

• reminiscent of the notion of the thugs as ‘hereditary criminals’ reiterated time and again during the 1830s... Thuggee had not yet become the all-India conspiracy propagated in the 1830s... (Wagner, 2007: pp.28, 196) I shoehorned in a mention of thuggee as an all-India conspiracy here, ideally I'd like to find a better way of mentioning this.
• But the extensive recording of thug beliefs, slang, and superstition, seemed to authenticate the difference between the hereditary cult-oriented criminal and the casual offender; and this won the case for special procedures. (Singha, 1998: p.174)

232b, 274, and 275: The colonial-era portrayal saw thuggee as an ancient practice, with Sleeman arguing that the Sagartii of the 5th century BCE were ancestors of the stranglers described by Thévenot.

• ... all the elements that were attributed to thuggee, and which today would be considered as colonial constructions, were actually derived from the approvers themselves; the ancient origin of thuggee being one example... (Wagner, 2007: p.152)
• ... alternative explanations for ‘thuggee’ to those repeatedly offered by the colonial administration and especially William Sleeman: that ‘thugs’ belonged to an ancient and widespread ‘organisation’ of religiously motivated, hereditary murderers... (Lloyd, 2006: p.6). I think this could be removed?
• In Rambles Sleeman declares his passionate interest in history... He argues that the Sagartii (a body of horsemen mentioned by Herodotus as accompanying Xerxes’ armies in the fifth century B.c.) were the ancestors of the thieves described by Thévenot... (van Woerkens, 2002: pp.221–222)

287 and 288: Laljee, the head zamindar of Sindouse who had protected the gangs and given them financial advances, was arrested in December 1812 amid a Rs 5,000 reward for his capture and sentenced to life in prison with hard labour.

• ... Laljee as the head zamindar of Sindouse... Asked about details of the thugs Laljee said: ‘I cannot precisely state – but they go on excursions and return with money, cloths, arms and tattoos and maintain themselves in this manner … I used to receive 25 or 50% on the money which I advanced to them... Laljee and several others accused of having taken part in the murder of Lieut. Maunsell, were arrested... In the end, then, Tejun succeeded to get his rival apprehended and for that he received the reward of Rps 5000... The Nizamat Adalat eventually sentenced Laljee and four others to imprisonment with hard labour for life. (Wagner, 2007: pp.82, 87–88, 177)
• ... the Thugs decided to move to another part of Sindouse and seek the protection of another zamindar called Laljee.... a reward of 5,000 rupees was offered for the capture of Laljee himself... swiftly found guilty of complicity in Maunsell’s murder — Laljee found himself imprisoned for life in the British jail at Roy Barelly, east of Delhi... Laljee had certainly financed the Sindouse Thugs, advancing capital that the gangs used to pay their way through India in return for interest at the exorbitant rate of 25 or even 50 per cent, and making what amounted to personal loans to members of the gangs in exchange for loot. (Dash, 2005: pp.44, 48–49, 65)

112e and 298: Discovered by the British authorities in 1836, [the River Thugs] were largely suppressed by 1840.

• In 1836 a new type of thuggee was discovered, namely river-thugs... (Wagner, 2007: p.214)
• In 1840 the Court of Directors... "the formidable confederacy of River Thugs has been almost entirely suppressed." (Van Woerkens, 2002: pp.103–104)

293c, 301, and 296c: Tashma-baz Thugs: thimble-riggers found on the outskirts of Cawnpore in 1848 that were legally classified as Thugs due to their having murdered and robbed a few travellers that they had met on the roads.

• The Tashma-baz thugs, for example, were simply thimble-riggers who had apparently learned their tricks from an Irish soldier and who poisoned some of the gamblers they tricked. (Wagner, 2007: p.128)
• The so-called “Tusma-Baz Thugs’, for example, found living on the outskirts of Cawnpore in 1848, were little more than Hindu thimble-riggers... They were really professional gamblers, who were bracketed with the Thugs solely because they had, as a sort of speculation, murdered and robbed a few travellers whom they met upon the roads. (Dash, 2005: pp.251–252)
• Van Woerkens (2002: p.103) can be removed, it's actually a quote from Fanny Parkes.

315a and 316: They were later taught to make tents and carpets, and by 1847 produced 130 tents and 3,300 yards of carpet yearly.

• Sleeman’s successors decided to turn the School into a tent- and carpet-making factory... Tent-making was taught by artisans from the Doab town of Futtehpore, and the art of carpet-weaving by men from Mirzapore, the great centre of that trade; by 1847 the men and women of the Thug village were turning out more than 130 tents and 3,300 yards of Kidderminster carpet a year. (Dash, 2005: p.274) Kidderminster carpet should probably be specified.
• Rawat & Mukherjee (2025: p.15) goes into more detail but isn't necessary to support the material.

154b, 329, and 330: The historical Sayyid Ameer Ali gave a deposition before Sleeman at Saugor in 1832, which, according to Wagner, only bears a "very slight resemblance" to Taylor's account.

• Comparing the content of the depositions of, for instance, Ghulam Hussain given in 1810 at Mainpuri before the local Magistrate and that of Ameer Alee given in 1832 at Sagar before Sleeman... (Wagner, 2007: p.23)
• See ‘Deposition of Ameer Alee’... The original confession bears only a very slight resemblance to that of Taylor’s protagonist. (Wagner, 2012: p.159)
• Sayyid Amir Ali did give an official deposition in Sagar in 1832... (van Woerkens, 2002: p.237)

126d and 343: The 1939 film Gunga Din marks the first portrayal of thuggee in film and sees three British soldiers and a waterbearer (Gunga Din) come into conflict with a resurgent sect of Thuggee cultists. The film is partly based on Rudyard Kipling's poem of the same name, as well as Soldiers Three, and ends with Kipling penning the first words of the poem after being saved by the three protagonists.

• ... the classic black-and-white movie Gunga Din (1939) starring Cary Grant was only the first of many to deal with thuggee... (Wagner, 2007: p.2)
• In Gunga Din, a film based in part at least on Rudyard Kipling’s Soldiers Three and Other Stories (1888) and on his poem ‘Gunga Din’... three British army sergeants... before almost single-handedly taking on the (completely anonymous) massed ranks of the thug worshippers of Kali, whose fanatical leader wants to raise a (sort of nationalist) rebellion and drive the British out of India... ably assisted by the eponymous Gunga Din, the despised water-carrier and true hero of the story, they succeed in saving the British army from defeat and by implication the British raj in India from extinction. In the closing scene of the film we, the audience, see ‘Rudyard Kipling’, who is accompanying the British army, saved by our three valiant heroes from defeat, sitting down at a table in a military camp and penning the first words of his famous poem. (Macfie, 2008: p.386)

3b and 5: Thornton's work copied extensively from Ramaseeana and served to popularise thuggee among Victorian audiences.

• E. Thornton unscrupulously copied Sleeman’s work in his own Illustrations of the history and practices of the Thugs and Notices of Some of the Proceedings of the Government of India for the Suppression of the Crime of Thuggee (London, W. H. Allen, 1837, reprint New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2000) (Wagner, 2007: p.232)
• ... at least one or two copies made their way to London, where Edward Thornton's Illustrations of the History and Practices of the Thugs appeared in 1837. A reorganization and popularization of the material contained in Ramaseeana... (Fhlathúin, 2001: pp.34–35)

Joko2468 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The earliest generally accepted use of the word dates to 1350 and it was sometimes used in precolonial India, in the same sense as the later British usage, to refer to highway robbers that deceived and murdered their victims.
19	a	Dash 2005, p. 298.
20	a	Wagner 2007, p. 30.
According to a 14th-century chronicle by Ziauddin Barani, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din Khalji deported 1,000 arrested 'thags' from Delhi to Bengal sometime between 1290 and 1296, however the chronicle makes no mention of what they were arrested for.
19	d	Dash 2005, p. 298.
26	d	Wagner 2007, p. 26.
At the trial in Mainpuri in November, he demonstrated for the court how the gang strangled their victims, though the trial descended into a farce as Hussain repeatedly revised his testimony regarding the extent of his involvement with the gang.
55		Wagner 2007, pp. 52–54.
56		Lloyd 2006, p. 5.
Up until this point, efforts to combat thuggee had been led by local authorities and the case marked the first time the central government intervened to ensure that the Thugs were convicted and to develop a judicial argument that saw Thugs treated in the same vein as pirates.
84		Wagner 2007, pp. 199–200.
85		Singha 1993, pp. 119–120.
Agent for the Saugor and Nerbudda Territories Francis Curwen Smith submitted a plan in November that he had written with Sleeman and which called for an officer to be appointed Superintendent for the Suppression of Thugs, who would send Thugs to be tried in the Saugor and Nerbudda courts.
98		Wagner 2007, pp. 203, 209.
99		Dash 2005, p. 143.
From 1830 onwards, the Government ordered Thugs sentenced to imprisonment to be branded with the Godna on a part of the body exposed to view, typically the forehead.
105		Wagner 2007, pp. 204, 263.
106	a	Dash 2005, pp. 168–169.
Dacoity was added to Sleeman's responsibilities in 1838 as thuggee activity had been effectively suppressed and, in 1839, he coined the term Megpunnaism to refer to the murder of impoverished parents to attain their children for sale, portraying it as a new form of thuggee.
115	b	Wagner 2007, p. 215.
116		Singha 1998, pp. 161, 220.
The archives of the Thuggee and Dacoity Department were repeatedly cited to evidence the existence of 'criminal tribes' and the department was a key player in the presentation of a crime plague perpetrated by itinerant and semi-nomadic communities.
132		Piliavsky 2015, p. 339.
133		Brown 2003, p. 211.
Beginning in the 1950s, the colonial-era representation of thuggee as a pan-Indian fraternity of ritual stranglers has come under sustained and diverse scholarly criticism.
142		Humes 2010, pp. 1294–1295.
143	a	Wagner 2012, p. 145.
her work has received criticism from scholars that view it as being "old-fashioned and inconsistent".
148	b	lrb.co.uk
175		academic.oup.com
176		Wagner 2004, pp. 934, 945: "Furthermore, I will discuss Martine van Woerkens's The Strangled Travel…
Though thugs would sometimes murder for modest sums, they preferred wealthy victims and surveilled travellers to ascertain their wealth.
185	a	Wagner 2007, p. 114.
186	a	Van Woerkens 2002, p. 120.
There were no eyewitnesses since every member of the party was murdered and little circumstantial evidence as the act was done by stealth, while items such as a rumāl, scarf, dhoti, wrap, cord, or even a knife and sword were likely to be found on innocent travellers.
197		Singha 1993, pp. 109, 116.
198		Wagner 2007, pp. 159–160.
According to Cynthia Ann Humes, Thug testimony only rarely referred to Bhavani, mostly in response to Sleeman's leading questions, and the Islamic concept of fate was invoked most often.
211		Humes 2003, p. 159.
212		Perris 2025, p. 212.
Some Muslim approvers disowned Bhavani upon turning King's evidence, having identified her with Fatima or as an instrument of Allah, and therein maintained their belief in monotheism.
209	b	Wagner 2007, p. 141.
210	b	Van Woerkens 2002, p. 150.
The thugs were also commonly and interchangeably referred to by themselves and fellow villagers as sepoys (meaning 'soldier' or 'retainer') and borrowed military terminology in their use of jemadar to mean gang leader and subedar for when several bands joined together.
186	b	Van Woerkens 2002, p. 120.
246		Wagner 2007, pp. 89, 110.
247		Dash 2005, pp. 35, 66–67.
Girls were married off to the sons or relatives of their adoptee, thus avoiding the costs of a dowry, while boys tended to go to childless parents in the context of high infant mortality rates.
248	b	Wagner 2007, p. 107.
250	b	Dash 2005, p. 86.
During the 1830s, British officials propagated a representation of Thugs as hereditary cult-oriented criminals, which allowed them to win the case for special procedures, and thuggee as an all-India conspiracy.
268		Wagner 2007, pp. 28, 196.
269		Singha 1998, p. 174.
The colonial-era portrayal saw thuggee as an ancient practice, with Sleeman arguing that the Sagartii of the 5th century BCE were ancestors of the stranglers described by Thévenot.
232	b	Wagner 2007, p. 152.
274		Lloyd 2006, p. 6.
275		Van Woerkens 2002, pp. 221–222.
Laljee, the head zamindar of Sindouse who had protected the gangs and given them financial advances, was arrested in December 1812 amid a Rs 5,000 reward for his capture and sentenced to life in prison with hard labour.
287		Wagner 2007, pp. 82, 87–88, 177.
288		Dash 2005, pp. 44, 48–49, 65.
Discovered by the British authorities in 1836, they were largely suppressed by 1840.
112	e	Wagner 2007, p. 214.
298		Van Woerkens 2002, pp. 103–104.
Tashma-baz Thugs: thimble-riggers found on the outskirts of Cawnpore in 1848 that were legally classified as Thugs due to their having murdered and robbed a few travellers that they had met on the roads.
293	c	Wagner 2007, p. 128.
301		Dash 2005, pp. 251–252.
296	c	Van Woerkens 2002, p. 103.
They were later taught to make tents and carpets, and by 1847 produced 130 tents and 3,300 yards of carpet yearly.
315	a	Dash 2005, p. 274.
316		Rawat & Mukherjee 2025, p. 15.
The historical Sayyid Ameer Ali gave a deposition before Sleeman at Saugor in 1832, which, according to Wagner, only bears a "very slight resemblance" to Taylor's account.
154	b	Wagner 2007, p. 23.
329		Wagner 2012, p. 159.
330		Van Woerkens 2002, p. 237.
The 1939 film Gunga Din marks the first portrayal of thuggee in film and sees three British soldiers and a waterbearer (Gunga Din) come into conflict with a resurgent sect of Thuggee cultists. The film is partly based on Rudyard Kipling's poem of the same name, as well as Soldiers Three, and ends with Kipling penning the first words of the poem after being saved by the three protagonists.
126	d	Wagner 2007, p. 2.
343		Macfie 2008, p. 386.
Thornton, Edward (1837). Illustrations Of The History And Practices Of The Thugs And Notices Of Some Of The Proceedings Of The Government Of India For The Suppression Of The Crime Of Thuggee. London: W. H. Allen. 2000 reprint. Thornton's work copied extensively from Ramaseeana and served to popularise thuggee among Victorian audiences.
3	b	Wagner 2007, p. 232.
5		Fhlathúin 2001, pp. 34–35.

Thank you for providing the passages, @Joko2468:; here's my response. I may come off as pedantic in some of my points, in which case feel free to push back against them. First of all, agreed on removing all of the red redundant citations.

Now, my points for the others:

• 19d and 26d. Dash, 2005: p.298 seems to distinguish between the '1000 of these criminals' and 'the entire group' which were rounded up between 1290 and 1296. Is Wagner, 2007: p.26 used here to reconciliate the two?

• 55 and 56. Agreed on removing Lloyd, 2005: p.5.

• 185a and 186a. How does van Woerkens, 2002: p.120 validate the last part about 'surveilled travellers to ascertain their wealth'? I think it is quite a loose interpretation to connect wealth to the original 'brought back information about travelers'. I suggest rephrasing the sentence. "Thugs preferred wealthy victims and used scouts (tilha) to gather information on travellers and road conditions." Cite Wagner for preference + van Woerkens for scouts.

• 209b and 210b. Agreed on removing Van Woerkens (2002: p.150)

• 3b and 5. Another pedantic note, but Fhlathúin, 2001: pp.34–35 doesn't precisely validate 'among Victorian audiences'. Add a stronger popularization cite or soften to "popularised thuggee in Britain."

• 268 and 269. there is a clear WP:SYNTH (and partial misrepresentation) problem here, especially with the Wagner citation. Wagner (p. 196) explicitly says the opposite of what the sentence implies. The article uses Wagner to support the idea that British officials propagated it as an all-India conspiracy (which is true in a general sense) but the specific phrasing attaches the phrase directly to Wagner's citation in a way that implies he supports the propagation as fact, while he is actually noting that it had not yet become that in the earlier period. Recommended fix: "During the 1830s, British officials propagated an image of Thugs as hereditary, cult-oriented criminals. This representation, reinforced by detailed recording of their beliefs, slang, and superstitions, helped justify special legal procedures. Thuggee was also portrayed as an all-India conspiracy." (Cite Singha for the first two sentences, and find a stronger source for the conspiracy part)

Bottom line for GA: This is a high-quality nomination with thoughtful sourcing. With the flagged fixes (especially 268/269 and 185a/186a), plus removing redundancies, it should pass Verifiability and No Original Research. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent thank you, I've added and removed those citations.

• The 14th-century chronicle has often been cited as conclusive evidence that thuggee stretched back to the medieval era (which is what the article said previously, misrepresenting Wagner), so I judged the fact that it doesn't even mention a specific crime to be an exceptional claim that could benefit from another citation (thus helping to stabilise the article). I see what you mean, the 1,000 arrested 'thags' merely relates to 1290 and then there were further deportations as late as 1296-- I'll rephrase sometime between 1290 and 1296 to in 1290.
• I've adopted your rephrasing for the scouts, though I amended it to ... and whether the roads were clear and left out the Ramasee word since these aren't generally covered elsewhere in the article.
• Changed to in Britain.
• I've adopted your rephrasing of the hereditary and pan-Indian portrayal, that's much clearer thank you.

Joko2468 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

THank you for swift fixes, @Joko2468. Spot-checked 20 references across the article, with particular attention to passages using multiple citations. All checked sources support the text after the recent improvements. No copyright or close-paraphrasing issues found. Moving on now to the prose. Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Amir Ghandi, I've finished this first batch. Let me know if any changes I made need further attention. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose review

Lead

• "...a policing campaign against thuggee that saw the Thuggee Department formally established in 1835 and legal developments that facilitated convictions" 'Saw' cannot act as the verb for the second element of the sentence. I think you should rephrase to 'with the legal developments'.

Tentatively changed to ", alongside"-- I'm going to have another look at this later.

• "Historians' reinterpretations vary as to the actual nature of the phenomenon." Why not 'about' or other simpler synonyms?

I agree this is a bit stilted, though I'm not keen on "about". There aren't many synonyms for 'vis-a-vis', I'll think about rephrasing.

• Link 'approver' at the first mention in the main body of the article (it is not currently linked)

Added link.

• "...thuggee became a Victorian sensation" In view of the recent change, how is this sentence supported in the main body of the article?

It's supported by "Thuggee thereafter became a Victorian sensation" in the Aftermath and legacy section, cited to Perris (2025: p.208). I also corrected the citations for the rest of that sentence.

Etymology and nomenclature

• "The English word thug is from the same roots" The phrase is a little unclear. Is it a direct borrowing or is it a cognate of the same Indo-European origin?

Amended to "is a loanword from the same roots". The history of this is covered in the In popular culture section, I'm unsure as to whether it should also be covered here.

Leave the brief factual sentence here and delegat all the explanations to the In Popular culture section.

Possible precolonial accounts

• "On another occasion, and while he was journeying to Pataliputra, Hsüen Tsang was told while passing a temple that no foreigner who entered it ever came out again" Two 'while' clauses back-to-back, needs rephrasing

Removed first clause.

• "The 15th–16th century poet Surdas wrote illustratively of a 'thag' luring a pilgrim with sweets and wine and then murdering and robbing them" "Illustratively" is slightly editorial and unnecessary. Just say "wrote of" or "described".

Removed "illustratively".

• "The 19th century archaeologist Alexander Cunningham claimed to have identified the temple and that this was an early account of thuggee" Awkward and vague. The second half ("and that this was an early account of thuggee") feels tacked on.

Amended this to "The 19th century archaeologist Alexander Cunningham claimed to have identified the temple and presented this as an early account of thuggee." Let me know if you think it can be further improved.

It's much better now.

• "A November 1797 tax list prepared for Maharaja Daulat Rao Sindhia, and obtained by a British official, covering 20 villages across the parganas of Parihara and Sursae lists 318 houses as belonging to thugs, who were subjected to a soldier tax" Too long and convoluted. It needs to be split or streamlined.

I've reorganised this into two sentences and signposted to the primary source.

Etawah crisis (1809–1811)

• "Amid the failure of Law's inquiries and the discovery of four strangled native soldiers in a jungle within his jurisdiction in July, the two magistrates of the neighbouring Aligarh and Farrukhabad districts were assigned to the matter." Long and convoluted. Suggestion: After Law’s inquiries proved unsuccessful, and following the discovery of four strangled native soldiers in July, the magistrates of neighbouring Aligarh and Farrukhabad districts were brought in to assist.

Adopted your suggestion.

• "Following the discovery of two strangled travellers in December and the initiation of a more thorough investigation, Law wrote: 'It is presumed that the murdered persons were travellers and fell victims to that detestable race of monsters called T,ugs [sic]... The T,ugs have infested the whole of the Doab, and this district in particular, from time immemorial, and they are so strongly leagued together, that scarcely an instance has ever been known of their having betrayed each others secrets.'" Very long sentence. Split or lighten it (keep the quote but consider trimming it slightly if possible).

I've removed the repitition of "from time immemorial", I think the cementing of this portrayal is better told elsewhere.

• "...a total 67" Minor grammar issue: a total of 67

Done.

• "Hussain stated that he had been adopted by the gang as a child after they had murdered his father and uncle, while the remaining prisoners initially admitted to murdering travellers over many years." The two different subjects make for a meandering sentence. Suggestion: Hussain stated that the gang had adopted him as a child after murdering his father and uncle. The other prisoners initially confessed to murdering travellers over many years.

Done, although both Wagner and Lloyd use the term "admitted"-- I think I'd be more comfortable retaining that.

• "He ultimately testified to having been on five expeditions and witnessing 95 murders, though this was rejected by the court for repeated perjury and later deemed inadmissible to try him for the murders he confessed to participating in." Quite long and complex, suggestion: He ultimately claimed to have participated in five expeditions and witnessed 95 murders. However, the court rejected his testimony due to repeated perjury and ruled it inadmissible.

Rephrased to: "He ultimately claimed to have been on five expeditions, witnessing 95 murders. However, the court rejected his testimony due to repeated perjury and it was later deemed inadmissible to try him for the murders he had confessed to participating in." Key to this part is that Hussain was then put on trial himself on account of his testimony, which was thrown out.