Talk:Safe harbor

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This disambiguation page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the literal definition necessary?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Promotional material[edit]

@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)[reply]

Quality complaints seem unjustified[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Internet

The US Patent and Trademark Briefing on ISP Liability states that in order to be eligible for safe harbor the ISP must have adopted and reasonably implemented a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers.

DigitalRights provides a service to copyright owners to monitor ISPs' compliance with their safe harbor eligibility.

External links

2000/520/EC: Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Safe harbor principle)

The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002- Section 17 "Mere Conduit"

Safe Harbor Arrangement Official site

Physicians and Safe Harbor Legal Immunity 2012

Safe Harbour British Columbia Diversity Program

Feel free to incorporate this content into other articles. The revision citation would be <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safe_harbor&oldid=494158902>. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

missing usage: related to AYP requirements of NCLB[edit]

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)[reply]

Copy & paste moves of Safe harbor → Safe harbor (law) & Safe harbor (disambiguation) → Safe harbor[edit]

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)[reply]