Webpage shows copyright 2019, no reference to Wikipedia, and is not at archive.is (or .org). ability to heal itself through a special vital energy, for example, was added at 2014-08-01T23:28:01Z. Comparison says all the prose on the source page (about 2K) is verbatim copied to the article's Naturopathy#Practice and Naturopathy#Methods sections. Earwig search shows an additional paragraph at Naturopathy#Australia was copied from [2], which is cited as source, but the text is not attributed as a quote, and is too big (I think). The other larger hits are properly cited and quoted, and seem to be of reasonable size, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]—07:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the [3] site is backwardscopied from Wikipedia. You can see Naturopathy#Methods has been assembled over many edits over the years, and that website matches the 2019 version. As just one small example the list in that section has been around for many years (since at least 2011, but was reordered to its current form with this 2014 edit. That current form then appears at the linked website above. Ajpolino (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Australia paragraph. It's clearly copy/pasted from the source (now at [4]). Sadly, it has been there since August 2008. If we were to revdel it, we'd have to also remove the thousands of diffs in between that and now. How do we usually deal with situations like this? Ajpolino (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the long quote would violate the BBC's copyright? It was written ~40-50 years ago by the BBC and unspecified members of government. I'm guessing copyright protection either lasts 70 years from publication (which was in 2008, unfortunately) or 70 years from creation (if we can sort out when that was). Either way, it'll be a while. Anyway, I removed the quote from the article. Ajpolino (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Original copyvio check here [6]. I have also put a selection of diffs from October 2014 to October 2019 into the Earwig Copyvio detector, with results ranging from 40% to over 80% chance of a violation. Not sure what to do with this information so I could do with some more experianced eyes here. LampGenie01 (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Backwardscopy as best I can tell (plus a new hit appeared since this was filed). Explanation at Talk:Red_team#Copyright_problem_removed. The other small hits I get on Earwigs now are all to the quote in the article. If there are other issues I'm missing, feel free to bring this back. Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 08:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 04:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)