The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary sources to support what you are saying is generally OR. Primary sources should only be used to state simple facts. While each individual sentence of that text may have been a simple fact, when you put them together like that it becomes more than just a collection of uncontroversial facts (as Jimbo says: "by drawing selectively on sources, the section gave an impression that is significantly at odds with the views of relevant parties to the dispute").
Using primary sources makes it difficult to ensure that you haven't missed something. When using secondary sources you simply have to determine what bias exists in the source, and if there is no significant bias (for example, it's an independent newspaper article about the case), you can trust that nothing significant has been missed out. In this particular example there was something very serious missed out - it made no mention of what the other side in the dispute had said in their defence. That clearly violated NPOV.