This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EU aviation fuel taxation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Kerosinsteuer from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Kerosene tax → Aviation fuel taxation in the European Union – I previously moved the article to "Jet fuel taxation in the European Union", saying "This [kerosene tax] is not an official name, or a WP:COMMONNAME in English". Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk · contribs) requested its move back, saying "'Jet fuel' is American English. All official publications about it from EU institutions and in EU member states call it "kerosene", so per WP:COMMONNAME, that is what it should remain. Mover incorrectly asserted it is "not an official name"; one can read it in all WP:RS provided."
English is not Nederlandse Leeuw's first language. "Jet fuel" is perfectly good British English as well as American English. This article concerns the European Union, and there is no such thing as European English. Aviation jet fuel is rarely referred to as "kerosene" in English. "Kerosene" is used more broadly to refer to the hydrocarbon, and sometimes to rocket fuel. In aviation, "kerosene" is rarely used. "Jet fuel" is often used, but it would typically be referred to specifically as Jet-A or Jet-A1.
Regarding aviation fuel tax, "kerosene tax" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. The phrase "kerosene tax" is a literal translation from other languages such as Dutch ("kerosinetaks") or German ("Kerosinsteuer") (the English article was originally translated from the German article), but it is not common English. EU documents in English do not call it the "kerosene tax". Energy Taxation Directive 2003/96/EG does not use the phrase "kerosene tax", but does use the phrase "jet fuel". Google gives fewer than 10,000 results for "kerosene tax", versus 85,000 results for "jet fuel tax", as well as over 20,000 results for "tax on jet fuel" versus 16,000 results for "tax on kerosene".
I propose the article should be renamed "Aviation fuel taxation in the European Union". There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the scope of the article is about both current and proposed aviation fuel taxes. Secondly, calling it a tax on kerosene or jet fuel is misleading. It is not a tax on all kerosene/jet fuel, only that used in commercial aviation. Furthermore, it is not a tax on just kerosene in commercial aviation, but on all fuel in commercial aviation. The current and proposed taxes concern commercial aviation versus "private pleasure-flying", regardless of whether an aeroplane has jet engines or piston engines. Jet fuel used in "private pleasure-flying" is already taxed, and avgas used in commercial aviation is tax-exempt. The tax is about commercial versus private aviation, not jet fuel versus avgas. cagliost ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ( talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Kerosene taxis the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources on this EU-specific topic, regardless of whether those sources are written and published by native speakers or non-native speakers, by official EU institutions, by European or non-European media, by EU media or non-EU media, by NGOs etc. There is no compelling reason to suppose kerosene tax is linguistically incorrect, or otherwise an "error" made by non-native speakers; it has been used frequently and officially by native and non-native speakers and sources alike, including official EU institutions, and even U.S. federal govt publications. The supposed "inaccuracy" or "misleading" description of kerosene tax is overrated. Moreover, there are cases in which subsidies are being given or considered for non-kerosene-based alternative sustainable jet fuels (see Aviation biofuel), so that "jet fuel" cannot be equated with "kerosene-based jet fuel". The 27 June 2023 undiscussed moved by nom (which also had a different title and scope than the current proposal, namely Jet fuel taxation in the European Union), was equally flawed, and I WP:RMUM'd already. Finally, no proper justification has been provided for expanding the scope beyond the contents of the current article. (Added this !vote plus rationale after the exchange below). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Therefore, this section only looks at the kerosene tax, the flight departure tax, as well as the currency or financial transaction tax.mentioned 17x in the document, while "jet fuel" is nowhere.
Several EU Member States have announced plans to introduce a new kerosene tax.
According to the Commission, the introduction of a kerosene tax could be an appropriate measure to address emissions from aviation so as also to ensure..
...the minimum kerosene tax rate that would be applicable to...
Kerosene tax for the aviation sector will be gradually increased in a linear way to the corresponding minimum tax rates applicable to motor..
The ETS reform and the kerosene tax will effectively double-charge EU airlines for their carbon emissions, but spare long-haul carriers from...
The petitioner suggests that the EU should introduce a kerosene tax for aviation.
providing economic incentives for sustainable jet fuels and low carbon aircraft; in other words, this is a subsidy, not a tax, and it is about non-kerosene-based fuels. From that perspective, kerosene tax is even more accurate than jet fuel tax, because you can receive money for using certain non-kerosene-based jet fuels rather than having to pay money for using kerosene-based jet fuels.
As part of the European Union (EU) climate plan, Brussels is already planning a tax on private jets across the region. At the moment, private jets are exempt from kerosene tax but it is envisaging 38 euro cents per liter of kerosene burned.0x "jet fuel tax". Just like Brussels Times, every time the word "jet" is used, it is part of "private jet(s)", never of "jet fuel tax".
The EU wants to end the basically free rider status of aviation, and implement a kerosene tax that's at the same level as other fuels.0x "jet fuel tax".
The EU’s Fit for 55 climate package already includes some proposed measures that will hit private jet use, such as a kerosene tax on planes, but that file is still working its way through EU institutions.0x "jet fuel tax". Just like Brussels Times, every time the word "jet" is used, it is part of "private jet(s)", never of "jet fuel tax".
The provision imposes the kerosene tax rate of 24.3 cents per gallon upon the entry or removal of aviation-grade kerosene and on the sale of such fuel to any unregistered person unless there was a prior...United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation 2007. I'm not sure if that U.S. Congress committee was all filled with non-native English speakers when they wrote this report, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Or perhaps these were infiltrants sent by Brussels to secretly distort the English language in the heart of U.S. power? Muhahaha. Jokes aside, this shows kerosene tax is not incorrect English at all. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This proposal is based on three observations about the title under discussion.
First, neither of our two very wordy (see
WP:WALLOFTEXT) antagonists,
EggRoll97 (
Cagliost or
Nederlandse Leeuw has the English-language usage correct. As a professional technical author of 30 years standing and wikipedan for half that time, I hope that the comments I offer here might carry some weight. Jet fuel is aviation kerosene and both terms are widely used, as is ATF (Aviation Turbine Fuel). Other terms, such as aviation paraffin, are sometimes used in certain locales, such as the UK. Our article on it is titled
Jet fuel. However Cagliost is wrong to suggest that "kerosene" is not widely used, while Nederlandse Leeuw is wrong to suggest that there is a standard "European English" (follow their proffered links and you will see what I mean). English does remain one of the three official procedural languages of the EU, and both terms appear in the related documents and media commentary. Lacking any specifically named EU legislation, there seems no reason to change Wikipedia's usage from our use of "Jet fuel" for the main article.
Second, this article is not about a single tax, but about taxation across the EU. At present there is only one such tax (in the Netherlands), but others are under discussion. So "Tax" in the title should be changed to "Taxation".
Thirdly, this taxation is specific to the EU countries. I would therefore propose that "EU" be included in the article title. Note that "European" alone is incorrect, as there are many European countries outside the EU.
Which all leads us to the rather clumsy "Jet fuel taxation in the European Union" or, as I propose here, the more readable "EU jet fuel taxation".
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Cagliost and Steelpillow: Hi, I'm glad we reached an agreement on the title and scope. I also agree that this edit is somewhat justified, because it is not directly relevant to aviation in Europe specifically, but it may be worth here to replace this text with something which is. We don't necessarily need to explain here all different kinds of aviation fuel that there are, just those commonly used in the European skies (and by which aircraft / helicopters / air balloons etc.) which would fall within the scope of this article. That way we could provide the reader some context of what we're talking about. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EU aviation fuel taxation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Kerosinsteuer from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Kerosene tax → Aviation fuel taxation in the European Union – I previously moved the article to "Jet fuel taxation in the European Union", saying "This [kerosene tax] is not an official name, or a WP:COMMONNAME in English". Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk · contribs) requested its move back, saying "'Jet fuel' is American English. All official publications about it from EU institutions and in EU member states call it "kerosene", so per WP:COMMONNAME, that is what it should remain. Mover incorrectly asserted it is "not an official name"; one can read it in all WP:RS provided."
English is not Nederlandse Leeuw's first language. "Jet fuel" is perfectly good British English as well as American English. This article concerns the European Union, and there is no such thing as European English. Aviation jet fuel is rarely referred to as "kerosene" in English. "Kerosene" is used more broadly to refer to the hydrocarbon, and sometimes to rocket fuel. In aviation, "kerosene" is rarely used. "Jet fuel" is often used, but it would typically be referred to specifically as Jet-A or Jet-A1.
Regarding aviation fuel tax, "kerosene tax" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. The phrase "kerosene tax" is a literal translation from other languages such as Dutch ("kerosinetaks") or German ("Kerosinsteuer") (the English article was originally translated from the German article), but it is not common English. EU documents in English do not call it the "kerosene tax". Energy Taxation Directive 2003/96/EG does not use the phrase "kerosene tax", but does use the phrase "jet fuel". Google gives fewer than 10,000 results for "kerosene tax", versus 85,000 results for "jet fuel tax", as well as over 20,000 results for "tax on jet fuel" versus 16,000 results for "tax on kerosene".
I propose the article should be renamed "Aviation fuel taxation in the European Union". There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the scope of the article is about both current and proposed aviation fuel taxes. Secondly, calling it a tax on kerosene or jet fuel is misleading. It is not a tax on all kerosene/jet fuel, only that used in commercial aviation. Furthermore, it is not a tax on just kerosene in commercial aviation, but on all fuel in commercial aviation. The current and proposed taxes concern commercial aviation versus "private pleasure-flying", regardless of whether an aeroplane has jet engines or piston engines. Jet fuel used in "private pleasure-flying" is already taxed, and avgas used in commercial aviation is tax-exempt. The tax is about commercial versus private aviation, not jet fuel versus avgas. cagliost ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ( talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Kerosene taxis the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources on this EU-specific topic, regardless of whether those sources are written and published by native speakers or non-native speakers, by official EU institutions, by European or non-European media, by EU media or non-EU media, by NGOs etc. There is no compelling reason to suppose kerosene tax is linguistically incorrect, or otherwise an "error" made by non-native speakers; it has been used frequently and officially by native and non-native speakers and sources alike, including official EU institutions, and even U.S. federal govt publications. The supposed "inaccuracy" or "misleading" description of kerosene tax is overrated. Moreover, there are cases in which subsidies are being given or considered for non-kerosene-based alternative sustainable jet fuels (see Aviation biofuel), so that "jet fuel" cannot be equated with "kerosene-based jet fuel". The 27 June 2023 undiscussed moved by nom (which also had a different title and scope than the current proposal, namely Jet fuel taxation in the European Union), was equally flawed, and I WP:RMUM'd already. Finally, no proper justification has been provided for expanding the scope beyond the contents of the current article. (Added this !vote plus rationale after the exchange below). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Therefore, this section only looks at the kerosene tax, the flight departure tax, as well as the currency or financial transaction tax.mentioned 17x in the document, while "jet fuel" is nowhere.
Several EU Member States have announced plans to introduce a new kerosene tax.
According to the Commission, the introduction of a kerosene tax could be an appropriate measure to address emissions from aviation so as also to ensure..
...the minimum kerosene tax rate that would be applicable to...
Kerosene tax for the aviation sector will be gradually increased in a linear way to the corresponding minimum tax rates applicable to motor..
The ETS reform and the kerosene tax will effectively double-charge EU airlines for their carbon emissions, but spare long-haul carriers from...
The petitioner suggests that the EU should introduce a kerosene tax for aviation.
providing economic incentives for sustainable jet fuels and low carbon aircraft; in other words, this is a subsidy, not a tax, and it is about non-kerosene-based fuels. From that perspective, kerosene tax is even more accurate than jet fuel tax, because you can receive money for using certain non-kerosene-based jet fuels rather than having to pay money for using kerosene-based jet fuels.
As part of the European Union (EU) climate plan, Brussels is already planning a tax on private jets across the region. At the moment, private jets are exempt from kerosene tax but it is envisaging 38 euro cents per liter of kerosene burned.0x "jet fuel tax". Just like Brussels Times, every time the word "jet" is used, it is part of "private jet(s)", never of "jet fuel tax".
The EU wants to end the basically free rider status of aviation, and implement a kerosene tax that's at the same level as other fuels.0x "jet fuel tax".
The EU’s Fit for 55 climate package already includes some proposed measures that will hit private jet use, such as a kerosene tax on planes, but that file is still working its way through EU institutions.0x "jet fuel tax". Just like Brussels Times, every time the word "jet" is used, it is part of "private jet(s)", never of "jet fuel tax".
The provision imposes the kerosene tax rate of 24.3 cents per gallon upon the entry or removal of aviation-grade kerosene and on the sale of such fuel to any unregistered person unless there was a prior...United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation 2007. I'm not sure if that U.S. Congress committee was all filled with non-native English speakers when they wrote this report, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Or perhaps these were infiltrants sent by Brussels to secretly distort the English language in the heart of U.S. power? Muhahaha. Jokes aside, this shows kerosene tax is not incorrect English at all. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This proposal is based on three observations about the title under discussion.
First, neither of our two very wordy (see
WP:WALLOFTEXT) antagonists,
EggRoll97 (
Cagliost or
Nederlandse Leeuw has the English-language usage correct. As a professional technical author of 30 years standing and wikipedan for half that time, I hope that the comments I offer here might carry some weight. Jet fuel is aviation kerosene and both terms are widely used, as is ATF (Aviation Turbine Fuel). Other terms, such as aviation paraffin, are sometimes used in certain locales, such as the UK. Our article on it is titled
Jet fuel. However Cagliost is wrong to suggest that "kerosene" is not widely used, while Nederlandse Leeuw is wrong to suggest that there is a standard "European English" (follow their proffered links and you will see what I mean). English does remain one of the three official procedural languages of the EU, and both terms appear in the related documents and media commentary. Lacking any specifically named EU legislation, there seems no reason to change Wikipedia's usage from our use of "Jet fuel" for the main article.
Second, this article is not about a single tax, but about taxation across the EU. At present there is only one such tax (in the Netherlands), but others are under discussion. So "Tax" in the title should be changed to "Taxation".
Thirdly, this taxation is specific to the EU countries. I would therefore propose that "EU" be included in the article title. Note that "European" alone is incorrect, as there are many European countries outside the EU.
Which all leads us to the rather clumsy "Jet fuel taxation in the European Union" or, as I propose here, the more readable "EU jet fuel taxation".
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Cagliost and Steelpillow: Hi, I'm glad we reached an agreement on the title and scope. I also agree that this edit is somewhat justified, because it is not directly relevant to aviation in Europe specifically, but it may be worth here to replace this text with something which is. We don't necessarily need to explain here all different kinds of aviation fuel that there are, just those commonly used in the European skies (and by which aircraft / helicopters / air balloons etc.) which would fall within the scope of this article. That way we could provide the reader some context of what we're talking about. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)