Talk:Safe harbor

Is the literal definition necessary?
I added the "legal" definition of "safe harbor" under a separate section, but as I think about it, is the literal definition really necessary? I mean, is there such thing as an "unsafe harbor"?

I can't help but think that the remainder of this page is of dubious value. Mmmbeer 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From my experience the alternate definitions are fairly common. Oh, I added an image to a literal safe-harbor. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for an explanation of safe harbor in 401-k laws. My understanding is that an employer can have a plan pass Compliance Testing when they might not ordinarily pass if they use one of two safe harbor strategies -- either they match employee contributions up to a certain limit, usually 6%, or they make a profit sharing contribution to all employees regardless of whether or not they are contributing to the plan. Papachapes 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Papachapes

Promotional material
@kuru You deleted a website from external links that I added, on the pretext that it is promotional content and has Google ads.If this is the parameter than how superretirementplans.com meets those standards as it is filled with all kinds of ads,the content is very low and the website has very low ranking in google .I don't understand why you kept that link in the external ,does this website immune to wiki policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer577 (talk • contribs)
 * I see no such link here to review. Kuru  talk  12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality complaints seem unjustified
I don't understand the complaints about this article's quality, and the claimed need for a rewrite. I was browsing some legal site, didn't know what "safe harbor" meant (except for the literal meaning) but knew it was some legal term, so came to Wikipedia, and this article gave me an immediate answer to my question that seemed entirely satisfactory.


 * Maybe I'm just spooked by the destructive consequences of the

notability conflicts, but I want to say that articles that are just like this one are one of Wikipedia's greatest values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.107 (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem with this article is that it is acting as a disambiguation page. The uses of the term "safe harbor" in this article have little relation to each other and ought to be in their own Wikipedia articles, with this page being a landing page to get to a more precise article.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. This article is half dictionary definitions, half disambiguation page. I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up the mess. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I split this page out to a few separate articles (Safe harbor (law), Safe harbor (commerce)), cut some sections, and performed some general cleanup. These two sections may have salvageable content, I'm not sure:

Feel free to incorporate this content into other articles. The revision citation would be . --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

missing usage: related to AYP requirements of NCLB
I was trying to understand a reference to Safe Harbor and got to this page. One of the few time that Wikipedia has faild me. I eventually figured out that it was related to AYP requirements of NCLB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.19.166 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy & paste moves of Safe harbor → Safe harbor (law) & Safe harbor (disambiguation) → Safe harbor
I don't see what the reason is for the May 2012 copy and pasting for the moves if there was a consensus that was reached beforehand. Can someone point to the talk page where this decision was made? --JBrown23 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)