Talk:Khes

Improved

We both have now cropped the inadequate material from the Khes. The remainder of the content(references and text) affirm each other. Do you want me to develop it further to meet GNG? Consider removing the above template. The subject has historical relevance, and it is notable. Please advise if it needs further improvements. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You cannot develop it to meet GNG. It either does or it doesn't, and I have already told you my opinion. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting GNG

AS per WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. And the page is sourced with enough references which are reliable. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton Hi! I want to learn and I am curious to know about the trimming of quotations. Those were atributed by citation to their original source. A quotation is the repetition of a sentence, phrase, or passage from speech or text that someone has said or written.

“The cloth is prized for winter wraps,” adding that it was “suitable for some European uses… (as) these cloths are something like the ginghams and checks of The khes was usable on both sides and Kipling attested to its hardiness as it was “proof against water, and will stand any amount of washing and knocking up by the washerman.”

— J Lockwood Kipling

. Kindly help me by telling the reason and improving GNG. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at the article you’ve quoted it from, and the text you’ve quoted: only the words in quotation marks are Kipling’s words, the rest is written by the author of the article and refers to Kipling in the third person. The text was directly copied from that article, and not attributed to it. The same goes for the other quotation, of which only three words were Baden Powell’s. Brunton (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hence, what should be the corrective action? Kindly confirm. Thank you RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The “corrective action” is to remove the copyvio. To prevent this sort of thing happening in future, what you need to do is to use the information in a source, but include it in the article in your own words without duplicating the actual text, rather than copying it. Brunton (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not change a single word and used a template quote, considering an author quotes it. And as per you, it is a copyvio. Please tell me how? The reference was along with the quote.“The cloth is prized for winter wraps,” “proof against water, and will stand any amount of washing and knocking up by the washerman.”author J Lockwood Kipling

Is it okay ? Kindly correct here or on the page. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Firstly, the text you copied was not by Kipling, it was a passage including quotations from Kipling copied from an article by another author, so was not correctly attributed. Note that it includes quotation marks to indicate which parts are by Kipling, and refers to Kipling in the third person. These should have alerted you to the fact that the entire text was not by Kipling.

Secondly, references should go at the end of the specific text they are supposed to support, not at the end of the preceding sentence. Brunton (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well noted. And thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Help

I am seeking help to improve GNG if it is still lacking. Kindly advice. Warm regards ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In what way do you want to improve the General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So that it can suffice the requirement and deletion can be avoided. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it isn't the guidelines that you want to improve, you want to change the notability of Khes. You cannot, because notability is inherent in a thing, not something editors can change. I also answered this question in the section "Improved" above. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, but I was not dreaming to improve the guidelines, and you knew it.. Very Bad humor! Or you seriously thought that I would seek help to alter the policies. Did you? For notability; It is not by opinion. Khes is very much notable. Because it is a verifiable subject with reliable and independent sources, and it is written with a Neutral point of view, not original research. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And as per the policies, I am removing the template. There is no point in keeping it over there. Thanks for your help RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, I'm not finding it difficult to find sources for this (aside from the ones already cited). I'm pretty sure this would pass AfD at this point, even if it started rough. RAJIVVASUDEV, please do not take this kind of stuff personally. "Notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and there are criteria, and a process. Otherwise we would have ten million articles on trivia. No one is out to get you; it's just a challenge and a learning curve to write properly encyclopedic articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

GNG is not satisfied. I will probably go to AfD over the weekend. This "thing" is just a blanket, or wrap, and even the punjabi word in the lead appears to describe something else that isn't a khes!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It actually appears to be a textile tradition, and the term is (from what I can tell so far) sometimes also applied to a wrap garment made from the textile. If this is correct, then it's pretty much the exact same situation as plaid (which is most often used as a mass noun to refer to a type/pattern of cloth, AKA tartan, but which also, as a count noun, refers to a thick shoulder sash in Highland dress, the plaid). As for a particular word not being right, that's a reparable problem. It's fine to AfD it, of course, if you've gone through all the sources and are convinced that WP:SIGCOV is not met, and have done some WP:BEFORE looking around for more sources. I would note that just the one source I added says some things about it being a rich historical textile tradition; I forget the exact wording, but something like "one of the oldest" in the region. It's often been my experience that marginally-notable-looking things end up easily passing WP:GNG after a few more AfD particpants go looking (and especially for subjects where a lot of the best sources are apt to be in some language other than English). So, AfD (despite mostly being intended for deletion) can actually often lead to rapid article improvement to fill a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS gap (of topics that aren't Euro/American getting short shrift), and of course it can also weed out chaff we don't need. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This looks quite well sourced for a new article on a niche topic. It did need some grammar, style, layout and other cleanup, but this seems to be an entirely viable article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish

It may need some further checking to make sure that each source corresponds to the material it's cited for (e.g., I had to add a source, for a particular placename being associated with khes production). I've given the whole article a major cleanup pass. My tweaks were mostly style, clarity, citation cleanup, layout logic, etc.

There are some open questions. The three major ones:

1. Why is this changing back and forth between present and past tense? The article mostly sounds like this is a former, historical cloth and folk-art, not something that is presently made.
2. What is the mention of women about? I think the implication is that it was mostly produced by women, but this isn't what it says, it just says women made it. (I.e., some women made it and some men did, and ... why does this matter? If you see what I mean.)
3. The article was mostly talking about khes as a mass noun (a substance, like wheat or cotton or granite), but sometimes also using it unexpectedly as a count noun (an object, like a donkey, my cat, three children). If the term is used both ways with distinct meanings, then this will need to be explained, and sourced as to the explanations.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish,I appreciate your time and advice; I am grateful for your help and efforts in correcting my erroneous editing. Some of the parts are trimmed in a rush and kept remainders meaningless now. For instance, the women were used to weave for the dowry. It was an essential item.. And the past present is another failed attempt because it is still in use in rural areas.. Thank you so much for everything. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That might be good material to work back into the article. As for verb tense, it would be good to pore back over it and try to indicate what is current, what is historical, and use the right verb tense. E.g.: it is (as a mass noun) a textile, and [I'm not sure of this] it is (as a count noun) also a type of garment, which was once popular but is not very prevalent today; it was something of an industry in some of these places, and it was mostly woven by women in that era, but today it is mostly a folk art, and [I don't now about this either] is today made by male and female specialist weavers; and so on. I don't know enough about the topic, and am too swamped in other things to really comb through all the sources on the questions. (PS: I don't mean literally to italicize the verbs in the article text; I'm just emphasizing for clarity here.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Terrible sourcing

I just checked citations 5 to 10 inclusive as they appear at the time of this post. They do not support the text they are supposed to support. I cannot believe that whoever added them actually read them. They all fail WP:V. I shall now check some more. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean 1-5 pass . And that much is more than sufficientWP:V. For 5-10 , I am sure. Kindly allow me to help. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

5th Reference page 129 infers that Khes is a blanket.

6th Reference page 5, 6, 16, 22 clearly describes the Khes in detail , use, and its weaving patterns. Please try. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you included such terrible references? Only an incompetent, or somebody incompetent in english would use them. Are all of your references of such poor quality? If I check the first five refs will I find them just as poor as the second five? Are all your citations as bad. (Hint : Many are, I have checked some.) I think you should check them as it seems quite clear that you have done no due diligence to ensure the fitness for purpose of your work. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering! Can you find better? This is a handloom material (100-200 years old technology). Moreover I am not the publisher of the sources (Poor , bad , worse, this is what sufficeWP:RS). And confers WP:verifiable. Please avoid lingering on this. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we do need to linger on this, because you seem to have an ongoing problem with sourcing. If a source doesn’t actually support the text it doesn’t matter who published it, it is not a good source for the text. I’ve just removed three sources that you added to support the sentence, “Khes were weaved with handspun cotton using a double weave technique”, because one of them didn’t mention khes and the other two didn’t mention double weave. You had also added a source that actually said that dowry items do not include a list of things, one of which was khes, to support the statement that khes “was an item of dowry”. This in no way supports the statement. From the url you used to link to it, it looks as if it was the result of a Google Books search for the words “khes”, “in”, and “dowry”, but you didn’t read it carefully enough to notice that they didn’t appear there as a phrase, and the source actually stated the opposite of what you thought it did. These are not isolated examples; many of the references you add look as if they could be the result of such a process. We had this same conversation on your talk page a month ago; your use of sources doesn’t seem to have improved since. Brunton (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, noted. But you are not getting it all. Please dig it again. Kindly allow me to help.

Double weave Go through the definition of what is a double weave; used to create double face cloths. Double-faced fabrics are double face cloths made of one warp and two sets of wefts, or (less often) two warps and one weft. These fabrics have two right sides or faces and no wrong side and include most blankets, satin ribbons, and interlinings. And Khes weaving is a double weave.

Dowry can not include everything. It is supposed to contain only essentials for a new/ married life, and Khes was one of the listed items of dowry. In Punjab, Mothers were purposely weaving Khes for the dowry and other household items such as Dhurries.

Keywords are typed “khes,” “in,” and “dowry.” like this only, And this is how it works for me and all, but I read the content thoroughly before posting, but i accept some of them might be placed wrongly or someone trimmed and kept those things with half meaning. I will be more careful. Appreciate your advice always. Please help me to include the text in the page. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gentle reminder Roxy the dog and Brunton, I wish Happy New Year to you and yours. Long time no show up! Some open ends of Khes are still to weave and waiting for us. The Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Kindly acknowledge the Consensus for above mentioned points. Best regards.RV (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What consensus? Brunton (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, esteemed Rajiv Sir, when you say " Kindly acknowledge the Consensus for above mentioned points." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus EDITCONSENSUS See Flow chart--

A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

But you both are looking clueless. Roxy, sir, you are pretending to be a saint, but you know, you are not. Happy New YearRV (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll ask again, because as far as I can tell, there is no consensus built around anything that You, Brunton and myself have discussed. Further, why have you posted that diagram here? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Rajiv, but you seem to have misunderstood my question. I wasn’t asking what a consensus is, I was asking what the specific consensus was that we were being asked to acknowledge. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Brunton and Roxy the dog My advise to the team, Meditate, .. . .... It was double weave, and dowry(mentioned above) from where you both escaped. And never came back. But I want these both in the article. Chart is posted here to remind you and it is this document is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 RV (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

”I want these both in the article” is not a consensus. If you want things included in the article, you need to provide sources supporting them. You have a source (the Insight Guides Pakistan one) that says that khes is a double-woven cloth. I can’t see enough of the text of the other source you have provided for this, or of the two that you have cited to support the statement that khes is included in dowries, to say that they support your proposed text. What is the exact text from the sources that supports your proposals? Given that you have already cited a source that says that khes is not included in dowries to support a statement that it is, I’d need to see the actual text before making any comment on whether they support your proposed text. What do these three sources say? Brunton (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And what on earth does a flowchart about reaching consensus have to do with a free documentation licence? And what does the license have to do with this discussion? Brunton (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You both were forcibly invited here to discuss. Hence it is not owning. It is a part of the consensus. Please reread the text and sources.

Khes is double weave cloth.

Khes was an item of dowry.

It is not difficult. OKAY?RV (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’ve now accessed the text of the “sikhchic.com” source (for some reason I couldn’t see the text last time I tried), and it does seem to support the statement that khes is included in dowries. I’m still not sure that this is sufficient given that you’ve also cited a source saying that khes is not included in dowries. What does the “India Magazine of Her People and Culture” source you’ve cited say? I can only see a snippet view of that, and what I can see does not support your text. As I’ve said, you do seem to have a source for it being a double-woven fabric, but I can’t comment on the second source, the “Threadlines Pakistan” one, beyond that the snippet view available doesn’t support your text. What do these other two sources actually say that supports your text? Brunton (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at some of these. Art-manufactures of India (p. 323) provides quite a wealth of information, including on the general nature of the fabric, places of then-common production, and also the count-noun usage to refer to an item made from the cloth, not just the cloth itself as a mass noun. There's a big enough block here it constitutes a piece of WP:SIGCOV, though at least one more would be required for WP:N purposes. Hand-book of the Economic Products of the Punjab goes on and on about khes, and is a source for terms for various varieties. Given that the first mentioned (later published) of these sources is mostly based on this second-named (earlier) one, they should probably be treated as a single SIGCOV source. It's hard to see much of what Colours of the Indus says; the snippet view is kind of screwy, at least on my screen. But, it's a paper source, so someone could get it via inter-library loan or something. The amount of coverage there seems pretty trivial though. "The Lost Tartan Khes of India" doesn't really tell us much in that abstract-view form, but it would be interesting to see the full paper; I don't known if the publishing International Journal of Intangible Cultural Heritage is a great source, a no-reputation one, or a predatory journal (bears some looking into). The Indian Textile Journal v94, I can't see much of. It does seem to refer to a more specific work, "A study of handmade carpets, durries and khes of Punjab", that would probably be worth tracking down (but might only be reasonable to from within India or thereabouts, near a major library). Threadlines Pakistan has an entire chapter, "Khes Designs" [1], which wasn't immediately noticeable from the URL that was used for this source. Several of those Google Books URLs needs adjustment to produce more targeted results (and just messing around with them often shows relevant material that was not cited yet). This is another source that will probably need someone in Pakistan or India to look for it, but it will probably constitute SIGCOV just by virtue of having a chapter about it and not being a primary source (it's from the govt. of Pakistan). Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers: Allahabad can confirm at least a geographical claim. And so on.I only looked at a few of the sources so far. I agree there are some problems here of various sources not seeming to exactly pertain to the sentence fragments they're attached to (which likely pertains to language-barrier issues), but that is probably fixable over time. Given that an article isn't required to have inline citations at all just to pass WP:N, I think we have a cleanup (improvement) job here, not a keep vs. delete decision. I would have looked into this more last night, but it was past my bed-time. :-)

There are a lot of stages in dealing with a new and questionable article: 1) Determine whether it's even an encyclopedically viable topic (seems to be). 2) Make it make enough sense in English not to be a WP:TNT candidate (I did that last night). 3) Make sure it does not directly contradict sources (there seem to have been a least a couple of minor issues in this regard, maybe unresolved). 4) Make sure every claim in it is sourced (one way or another). 5) Make sure that inline citations actually are where they belong. Given that India has 70+ langauges, and I don't read any of them, I have to wonder whether other-language Wikipedias already have a couple of articles about this, with sources cited that are not in English but perhaps better. I'm not in a position to look into that, but I'll ping the India and Pakistan wikiprojects, to see if someone else can (and maybe help the primary author a bit in some other ways).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just looked at another one, the source used to support “The craft of khes-weaving had great significance in rural areas.” The source cited is a 675-page book, but doesn’t give a page number, it just links to the result of a search which says “Your search - Khes-weaving significance - did not match any documents.” RAJIVVASUDEV, you added this, can you provide a page number, or some other means of identifying the particular text you used from the source? Brunton (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Brunton Page number was 460, 477 (Related-Khes in dowry), but the proper text is moved, and now the reference is associated with another. Kindly go through the points that I've explained in your earlier talk on this page only. We shall fix it. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I only have access to snippet views of those pages, and what I can see doesn’t support the text. Please can you quote text from pages 460 and 477 that you think supports the sentence, “The craft of khes-weaving had great significance in rural areas”? Brunton (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the ambiguous reference. Please confirm. And you have not commented on Double weave and Dowry. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You have just added two sources. The second one actually contradicts the statement about economic support because it says that khes weaving “has very little commercial value”. I can’t access the full text of the first one, only the first page preview on JSTOR, which doesn’t mention khes. What does that article say specifically about khes? Can you quote the relevant text? Brunton (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Recently I have added four sources, Source number 12 part text is copied here, It is informing about the historical significance related to Punjab.

These recurring designs give fresh evidence of the remarkable survival of cultural patterns in Punjab. Khes was evolved centuries ago during the Mughal period to meet the demand of a cot­ton blanket. Before the import of ma­chine made goods from Britain and Europe in the mid nineteenth century, small scale cotton industries in Gambat, Hala, Nasarpur, Thatta and Karachi, all in Pakistan, were known for their hand looms. Hand spinning was prac­ticed and the thicker phulkari fabrics, khesare living examples of it. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Source 11 is informing about economical significance, The suffering of the weavers with newly emerged british cloths(For weavers which were weaving Khes and other qualities) Text(broken) is here.of the demand curve for cotton textiles in the 19th century India has been recently brought ... While British cloth was competitive with Indian handloom production, ... influence rather late. ... The weavers of the finer fabrics, such as Susi, Khes, or any cloth ... could not remain untouched by the injurious impact of British cotton. by S Gupta · ‎1973 · ‎Related articles Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit[[2]] is not appreciable because the Source 11 signifies the economic support to Khes weavers. You can correct it if you consider the source text. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn’t quite support the text. An economic impact on weavers, some of who were khes weavers, does not mean that khes weaving itself was economically significant. Using it to source this is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The fact that something is of economic significance to khes weavers doesn’t mean that khes weaving is economically significant. There’s also the problem that we have another source, cited to support the same sentence, that appears to contradict this. Brunton (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Brunton, We might be agreeing or disagreeing on interpretation : BRD, but conclusively, weavers as a community grieved because of British cloths at that time. These were the forms that were hand spinning, weaving Khes, Durries, and other coarse count textile products of handloom in Punjab province of India and Pakistan. Therefore it was a significant setback on the economy of Punjab . Secondly, I am still expecting your response on Double weave and Dowry defined above. The page is incomplete without them. Kindly help. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've asked the India and Pakistan noticeboards, and the WikiProject Pakistan talk page (the India one redirects to its noticeboard) to help out here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ਖੇਸ੍

I have used 7 online translating websites to try to gain some understanding. It didn't help as none of them told me that ਖੇਸ੍ translates to khes. What should we do? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

ਖੇਸ੍ is Khes written in Punjabi language, similar to if I write ਪੰਜਾਬੀ is Punjabi. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe you -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir, you should not believe anyone. But you can not deny the sources.Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blueWikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

ਖੇਸ੍ = hair not khes -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir, ਕੇਸ਼੍ / ਕੇਸ੍ = hair and ਖੇਸ੍ = khes. You can trust Khes, and for more information on Kesh, please visit Kesh (Sikhism) and The Five Ks. Please do not trim the things from the article in your belief. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Khes the same as Kesh? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Kesh is hair. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, and here is me thinking that seven online translators cannot be wrong. I take it that Khes = Blanket then, yes? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am glad. Thank you RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarifications for the template in the article

• The Punjab region was^[clarification needed] famous for the production of khes and many coarse cotton textiles produced in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Punjab region was famous for homespun and handloom products; significantly coarser varieties such as (Khes, Dhurries) and delicate types such as Muslins were from Eastern parts of India.

• Women in villages used to weave khes.^[clarification needed]

Handloom was a rural industry then. Women in villages used to weave for occupation; Weaving was a hobby(for young girls, just like knitting and embroidery). Mothers were weaving khes and Dhurries for their domestic use as an item of their daughter's dowry. It was the culture of rural Punjab.

• Present situation: The art of traditional Khes weaving is dying; it rarely exists in remote areas. Thanks for the help. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References