This is what my post said "I find the first paragraph of the article to be rather strange. It gives the controversial definitions (one coming from a RSS mouthpiece, and another coming from some Greek literature) upfront. The more commonly used and most logical definition (a follower of Hinduism), is provided at the end. In a neutral, "disinterested tone" article, the controversial parts should not be provided so much prominence. If anything, they should be included in the "disputes" section, no ?"
 It is hard to fathom how this gave you the sense that I am "trying to make this a battleground between Hindus and Sikhs." I did not even mention the word Sikh there.  and I have been discussing this subsequently in a healthy manner, it is only you who got some "war path" impression. Disappointed.