Wikipedia

Talk:EU aviation fuel taxation

(Redirected from Talk:Kerosene tax)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Nederlandse Leeuw in topic Scope
Learn more about this page

Requested move 28 June 2023

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to EU aviation fuel taxation. While this proposal was initially contentious, the alternate suggested title of "EU jet fuel taxation" moved the discussion significantly towards finding an agreement. Building upon that proposal, one participant suggested that "EU aviation fuel taxation" would more WP:PRECISEly indicate the article's topic, and this alternate title similarly seemed to attract agreement.
Still later in the discussion, the title "Fuel taxes in the EU" was raised as another possibility; however, this proposal would appear to change the article's scope substantially, and it did not receive substantial discussion. Consequently, I don't see consensus for that title at this time, though further discussion of "Fuel taxes in the EU" would be welcome if people feel it would be a preferable title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

  • Oppose The proposal is fundamentally flawed. No part of it makes sense, nom frequently contradicts themselves, and makes claims about the English language, as well as our WP:policies and guidelines, which are simply incorrect. Kerosene tax is 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)Reply
English is not Nederlandse Leeuw's first language Correct, but irrelevant.
there is no such thing as European English Yes there is: European English, and Euro English.
Google gives fewer than X results... Fails WP:GOOGLETEST because you did not include "EU" or "European Union" etc. in your search, so that you'll end up with lots of results that are irrelevant to the subject.
EU documents in English do not call it the "kerosene tax". Hmmm let's test that. Just within the europa.eu domain:
This is just the first page of results, but I think the point has been sufficiently proven. As with the 5.4.2005 document, most of these EU documents mention "kerosene tax" multiple times and "jet fuel" never, let alone "jet fuel tax". It's just not very common.
In fact, "jet fuel tax" eu site:europa.eu gets 143 results, while "kerosene tax" eu site:europa.eu gets 518 results. In English-language documents on the official website of the EU, "kerosene tax" is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME.
I propose the article should be renamed "Aviation fuel taxation in the European Union". Congratulations, you have just self-invented a term that has zero results on Google. It's really ironic that you should invoke WP:COMMONNAME and then go on to propose a name nobody has ever used on the Internet before. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You link to European English, which redirects to English language in Europe, and to Euro English, which tellingly says "is an alleged group of pidgin dialects of the English language as used in Europe, based on common mistranslations and the technical jargon of the European Union (EU)". "Kerosene tax" is clearly a literal translation of "kerosinetaks" and "kerosinsteuer" etc. It is quite unusual for native English speakers to call jet fuel "kerosene". That's why the phrase "kerosene tax" sounds so weird to the native English speaker.
You don't really engage with my arguments for why the article should be renamed. Firstly, this is not a tax on kerosene, it's a tax on fuel used in commercial aviation, which is not necessarily kerosene. In addition, it's not a tax on kerosene used outside aviation. "Kerosene tax" is a misleading nickname.
Secondly, the scope of the article is and should be broader than one proposed tax. It currently concerns the proposed tax, as well as the existing tax arrangements, and various country-specific history.
"Aviation fuel tax" and "aviation fuel taxation" have plenty of Google results. Just looking at the first page of Google results for "aviation fuel tax":
Google for "Aviation fuel taxation" gives overlapping results, as well as
You will see that all the above articles concern the EU. Clearly taxes on aviation fuel can have a variety of names, but if we're going to make arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME, relying entirely on europa.eu is not wise, firstly because you can't make a COMMONNAME argument from one source, and secondly because it contains a textual corpus that has often been translated from one language into English and many others besides. For example, the Energy Taxation Directive is available in 23 languages. Being legal documents, these are going to be literal translations, not common English. cagliost (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You rejected that there could be any sort of "European English". Although there are disputes about what that means, and whether it is an independent variety of English, or dependent on especially British and American English with lots of influences from continental European non-English languages, it has been observed that this appears to be an emerging variety, or may in fact already be a hybrid language when analysing English as used in European Union law. (I read and wrote about it 2 days ago at Euro English; even I was surprised how much the phenomenon had been observed by scholars already since 1986). Whatever it is, just because this "European English" or "Euro English" deviates from commonly recognised standards such as British English or American English, doesn't mean any expression of it is automatically incorrect or wrong. Lots of phrases have entered the English language that are used pretty much only in an EU context, such as Acquis communautaire, comitology, Staatenverbund, Spitzenkandidat, etc. in both formal and informal usage, in official documents, newspapers, radio programmes, televised debates, anything (see also Glossary of European Union concepts, acronyms, and jargon). I would argue kerosene tax is exactly such an example.
Lots of things may sound weird to the native English speaker. That doesn't necessarily mean they are incorrect or wrong. And even if they may be linguistically wrong, that doesn't mean they can't be article titles. After all, we've got pages like Covfefe (a word used in English by a rather well-known native English speaker).
I agree "kerosene tax" is somewhat inaccurate, but lots of shorthands are inaccurate, like "burqa ban" (e.g. "Burqa ban in Australia") as a common shorthand for what is technically an anti-mask law, because it usually includes lots of other face coverings that aren't burqas. "Kerosene tax" is just how what Americans would call "jet fuel tax" is known in EU English. Saying it's inaccurate is no more to the point than saying de:Kerosinsteuer is misleading in German, nl:kerosinebelasting is misleading in Dutch, petrol / petrol tax misleading in Commonwealth English (because petroleum is not the same as gasoline), gas / gas tax as an abbreviation for gasoline / gasoline tax misleading/confusing/ambiguous in North American English, burqa ban is misleading in English in general, and so on. WP:COMMONNAME is not about what is linguistically or technically correct, but about how a topic is commonly named.
Secondly, the scope of the article is and should be broader than one proposed tax. That's your opinion. I wrote it with a narrower scope. If you want to write about other stuff, you're free to write your own, separate article, and have that and this one link to each other. E.g there is a difference between an airport improvement fee, departure tax, air passenger tax etc. We shouldn't be lumping things together if they are different. This topic is complicated enough on its own. Let's keep 'em separated (as Americans would say).
relying entirely on europa.eu is not wise I know, but I did that to demonstrate to you that kerosene tax is in wide official EU usage, in order to refute the incorrect justification for your undiscussed move that This is not an official name, or a WP:COMMONNAME in English (it is an official name, and it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language documents on europa.eu; 3.62 times more common than "jet fuel tax"), and your incorrect claim above that EU documents in English do not call it the "kerosene tax". I never said we should rely only on europa.eu, and it's silly to suggest that I did.
it contains a textual corpus that has often been translated from one language into English and many others besides. So bloody what? Are you suggesting we should ban any source that was not originally written in English? Preposterous. English Wikipedia does not indulge in native speaker chauvinism. We are even allowed to directly cite WP:NONENG sources if we like.
not common English There is no such thing as common English. Funny.
If you'd like to write about something else, write a separate page about that something else, rather than undiscussed moves or going WP:OFFTOPIC. Good luck! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
English-language media frequently discuss it as kerosene tax, whether they be native-English or non-native-English.
  • Brussels Times 6x "kerosene", always combines with "tax, taxation, taxed, taxes". 9x "jets", always combines with "private" to make "private jets"; never combines with "fuel", never combines with "tax*".
  • Financial Times 4x "kerosene tax" (variations include "levy on aviation kerosene"), 1x "jet fuel......taxation"
  • Forbes 1 1x "kerosene tax", 0x "jet fuel tax"
  • Forbes 2 6x "kerosene", always combines with "tax*". 1x "jet" in 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.
  • Forbes 3 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".
  • Euractiv 10x kt, 0x jft. They've even made it a topic tag: https://www.euractiv.com/topics/kerosene-tax/
  • Reuters. 6x "kerosene tax/levy/tax haven". 2x "jet fuel tax break/exemption", 1x "excise duty on jet fuel".
  • The Guardian 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".
  • Politico.eu 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".
NGOs such as European Federation for Transport and Environment write publications such as Kerosene taxation. How to implement it in Europe today.
Funnily enough, Google Books suggests that "kerosene tax" is even a term often used by the U.S. govt or state govts. For example, 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)Reply
Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject Taxation has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject Energy has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject European Union has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alternative proposal: EU jet fuel taxation

edit

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)Reply

@Steelpillow I think you mean "Cagliost" rather than "EggRoll97"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I have made the change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Steelpillow I agree with some of your points. Although "EU jet fuel taxation" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, it will be more accurate than "kerosene tax". Would you agree to have kerosene tax and/or kerosene taxation as an WP:ALTNAME and redirects? Because I'm pretty sure that this is the WP:COMMONNAME in RS about this topic, this is what most people will search for and recognise, so I think it should be mentioned prominently in the lead section, and where appropriate (e.g. in quotations) in the main body. This would be an acceptable compromise for me.
I've got some questions remaining. Won't your proposed title suggest EU taxation of all jet fuels including aviation biofuel (the opposite of what is being proposed)? It's only the kerosene-based jet fuels that anyone is seeking to tax, which is why "kerosene tax" is commonly used as a shorthand. Secondly, have you got a specific reason for "jet fuel" rather than "aviation fuel" as proposed by Cagliost? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Aviation fuel includes avgas (aviation gasoline), and technically also alternatives such as alcohol and hydrogen. The taxation of these is outside the current scope of the article, so the title needs to reflect that. Jet biofuel is also known as biokerosine, so the bio issue applies whichever way we go. Also, the taxation regime for jet biofuel and bio-fossil mixtures is relevant, if only to state that the tax level on pure biofuels remains at 0%. I don't think that "EU fossil-kerosine tax" would help anybody. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Steelpillow Fair enough. You've convinced me.
Support "EU jet fuel taxation", with kerosene tax and kerosene taxation as WP:ALTNAMEs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I would prefer EU aviation fuel taxation. Nederlandse Leeuw says "It's only the kerosene-based jet fuels that anyone is seeking to tax". I don't think we can say this. It's true that some proposals for taxing aviation fuel refer imprecisely to kerosene/jet fuel, e.g. an EU petition. However the actual wording of the existing Energy Taxation Directive refers to commercial aviation fuel. Under the ETD, jet fuel is already taxed if used for pleasure flying, and if a tax were implemented using the existing Energy Taxation Directive, it would also apply to avgas used commercially. There isn't any draft legislation at the moment, so I don't think we can say proposals are to tax only kerosene and not commercially used avgas, since no get formal proposals yet exist. Often petitions use imprecise wording, but the exact implementation is cleaned up when the legislation is drafted. I would expect if the ETD were overturned, to mandate instead of prohibit commercial aviation fuel tax, the wording would be similar to the existing ETD. cagliost (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    That would change the scope of the article, as well as the title. I have no objection to doing so, if others agree in principle, but see my latest propsal below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [updated 08:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)]Reply
  • Just realised we already have several articles on Fuel taxes in [country X], so Fuel taxes in the EU is the obvious home. That further widens the scope, but I see no reason not to do so. Does that still make sense? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scope

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

@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)Reply

Oh wait, cagliost already restored it. I didn't pay attention, sorry! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can agree with the subsequent edits to the altnames as performed by cagliost as well. This is a good balance between all our concerns.   Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EU_aviation_fuel_taxation&oldid=1238345611"