Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 09:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Universal jurisdiction(history · last edit · rewrite) with (at least) the fourfive copyvios below. Earwig's detector starts off with a 96.8% copyvio, but that looks like a rather low-quality website that copy/pasted from Wikipedia. Here I've only tagged fourfive of the top violations. The one that caught my eye was the one that started using the jargon "forum country" without bothering to integrate the term into the article itself.
history section/Kissinger: It looks like the material was inserted validly at 08:50, 3 July 2007 as a rather long quote. The quotation marks were clearly in place, so at the time, it wasn't a copyvio. Someone later on presumably found that the long quote didn't look good, and dequoted the main part of that. So whoever did the dequoting is the person who did the copyvio, by thinking that "looking good" overrides the issue of copyright (as Buidhe says, this probably counts more as plagiarism than copyright violation, since the original copying was fully legal and ethical; so maybe the editing history and the culprit do not have to be traced, although it would be best to warn that editor if we can find him/her).
at least two of the subsections of the Criticisms section: single edit at 03:06, 19 March 2021 by Lamizhang08, who seems to have been a university student editor who somehow missed the key message of "summarise the information".Boud (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: I don't want to create extra work, but isn't history deletion obligatory any more for copyvios? Or is this a matter of judgment depending on the severity of the case? Boud (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It never was. It is done only when the copyvio is material to the article. MER-C 07:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]