The current definition is exactly same as the one given in MedicalGlossary.org, at http://www.medicalglossary.org/archaea_korarchaeota_definitions.html. So there is a potential copyright violation. The source page does say "MedicalGlossary.org is designed as a free, browsable resource for all." But exact copyright terms are unclear. --Sivaraj 18.104.22.168 18:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The passage has been removed on grounds of both "copyvio" and that descriptive content belongs on Wikipedia, not Wikispecies --Georgeryp 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Internal inconsistency around superregnum Archaea regna 
The definition on this page appears not to be the same as the above link! That page describes Korarchaeota as a kingdom in superregnum Archaea, which is not what this page says.
- Archaebacteria is here said to be a regnum in Archaea, but on page Archaea it is not among the four regna. The page Archaebacteria is a redirect to Archaea!
- On page Archaea Korarchaeota is a regnum of Archaea, but here it is a phylum within regnum Archaebacteria.
See also my related (but different) query at Talk:Euryarchaeota.
I am unwilling to make major changes of this kind here myself as I am not an expert in this field of fundamental taxonomy. However I would think the related group of Wikispecies pages about these taxa need to be consistent with each other, whatever the current state of the actual science.
Iph 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)iph