`  :  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.   `