The source he is referring to is likely this the article I discovered  The reason I invited the wider view mentioning that other political parties are involved in violence is because it gives the reader a greater understanding of the elements at play  Just as if one were to read about sea stars and there is a mention that they eat phytoplankton mentioning that jellyfish also eat phytoplankton might be useful for greater understanding of the sea stars are they in the same waters do they compete for food  To present this information as if CPIM members are singular in their violence is not a correct viewpoint if violence is ongoing between many parties  In another example if we were to present a fistfight between a man in a red shirt and a man in a white shirt when they both were arrested for fighting If we reported that as The man in the red shirt was striking the man in the white shirt repeatedly until eventually he was arrested is not neutral because it gives undue weight to only one portion of a greater conflict not informing the reader of all the information they could otherwise have  As to your other question  What wiki policy prohibits use of only one source if the source is reliable for the type of information the source is providing here then it may not be correct for it to be prohibited  If other reliable sources disagree about the existence of Harmath then wed have a different avenue to go  However this is the Wikipedia policy I am currently the most concerned with  If Harmath is truly only supported by a single source mentioning them unequivocally as a militant arm of the party based on that one source might be undue weight  Saying One source claimed that an organization called Harmath is a militant arm might be better but we must take care not to use that as a gateway to simply reprint the article here  If there is but one source the weight that this should be given is likely minimal  Does that properly speak to my viewpoints