Oh, it's a copyvio all right - if nothing else, an old school cut & paste copy from an alternate title. Looking further. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I am not able to prove backwards copying. Some of the changes I see from the external site suggest that our article is a modification of their content rather than the other way around - for instance, our article said "His recent report on Attitude to memorials exposed to different historical interpretations (2009), was also" - the external site says "His recent report, “Attitude to Memorials Exposed to Different Historical Interpretations” (2009), was also". The comma is correct in the latter, incorrect in our own version. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I am not able to prove backwards copying. Some of the changes I see from the external site suggest that our article is a modification of their content rather than the other way around - for instance, our article said "His recent report on Attitude to memorials exposed to different historical interpretations (2009), was also" - the external site says "His recent report, “Attitude to Memorials Exposed to Different Historical Interpretations” (2009), was also". The comma is correct in the latter, incorrect in our own version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)