Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla

Responses

• Include cost in body only: Per MOS:BLPLEAD, including this controversy in the lead gives it undue weight relative to the overall scope of Shukla’s life and career. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Include cost in body only. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of his seat on one mission is a minor affair and cramming into the lead is WP:UNDUE. What's more, mentioning it so prominently in the lead with no context leads towards the "tourist joyride" side of the cost debate, which violates WP:NPOV. Asamboi (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Include in lead and body - Lead is the summary of the body, the coverage to the cost of the seat has been given the required coverage in the body hence a mention in the lead is valid. Koshuri ^(あ!) 04:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• I still don't see any valid reason to remove it from the lead, thus I support inclusion in both lead and body. Wareon (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Include cost in body only as per the lengthy arguments I and others have already made above and in the archives. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Asamboi stated reasons above@Wareon ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I concur with Woodroar, my first preference remains to not have any cost listed in the article as it is irrelevant, which I have noted in the past. But, I feel like many editors want to include it, so the above !vote is only a compromise, and it is in no way an oppose against total removal. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• The sources I provided yesterday leaves no doubt that the cost is significantly discussed worldwide, and some of the outlets have in fact dedicated separate article just for discussing about it. It should be in both 'body and lead. Azuredivay (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  We have been there before: the cost is relevant to the article on the mission, not the astronaut. Similar articles exist for Apollo 11 as well, do we go to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to mention the cost? No, because it is irrelevant to the astronaut, whose sole job is to perform the mission they have been selected for. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  best recent example is Tibor Kapu, there's not a single difference in between him and shukla, except their host nation and objectives. still my addition wasn't allowed on tibor's page. so Include cost in body only ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 15:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, because no editor who understands WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT will agree to this. The reverter there did the right thing imo. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  that guy didnt even knew this cost discussion beforehand btw ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 15:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  There actually is an important difference between Shukla and Kapu: Shukla is what I would call a “career astronaut” — he works for ISRO and after this mission he will continue to work for ISRO and is widely expected to fly again. Kapu is on a government sponsored mission (and is presumably being paid for his time) but at some point after this mission he will return to his engineering career. The same is true for Uznański-Wiśniewski. He was selected by ESA as a “project astronaut” which means he gets to make one trip to space to conduct a project, then he’s done. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  agreed and your above statements seem to tell its more unfair to add cost on this page unlike the other two. if the other two's cost are put in lead, say hypothetically, it may not have been a issue unlike shubhanshu who is almost certain on Gaganyaan-4 ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 16:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Do not include cost in article, with Include cost in body only as a second choice. While some reliable sources mention the cost, very few do so. I read every article on the first page of Google search results for "Shubhanshu Shukla", and found that only 1 source mentioned the cost while 13 did not. This is a strong indication that including the cost in the lead is UNDUE. Interestingly, perhaps half of the articles did mention the mission's cargo weight (580 pounds) and number of experiments (60), but I don't see anyone arguing to include those figures in the lead. A charitable interpretation is that everyone realizes that they're relevant to the mission, not the astronaut. The same is true of the cost to send the astronaut, as CX Zoom has pointed out. There are also BLP concerns, especially considering that we don't include this information in articles on other astronauts. Ultimately, this information should not be included in our article on Shubhanshu Shukla, but if we have to include it, it's absolutely not appropriate for the lead. Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Include in the body and lead - Agree with Koshuri Sultan. Lead needs expansion but it does not mean we remove the cost of the seat that the government had to pay for. Tom Lee 8899 (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Here is another source that is solely talking about the cost. Tom Lee 8899 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Include cost in body only, per many arguments above that inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Include cost in body only per others it is WP:UNDUE for the lead but mentioned enough in some sources I am not opposed to it being covered in the body. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Include in the body only - Seems sorta awkward putting it in the lead. Seems like trivial content for the lead. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Include in the lead and the body: Many sources have dedicated entire articles on the issue, as have been given by editors such as Azuredivay. Wikipedia says what reliable sources say, and when coverage is this widespread, inclusion in both the lead and the body is very much WP:DUE. Furthermore, as per Wikipedia policy, the lead is nothing more than a summary of the rest of the article. Since, the cost of his seat has been granted such coverage in the body of the article, it should be this included in the lead. Removing such detail from the lead would violate Wikipedia policy. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  In light of WP:BLPLEAD, please explain how this is given due weight relative to the overall scope of Shukla’s life and career. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple editors have already provided a lot of coverage of the costs by sources. The following sources have created articles either primarily based on the cost, or solely based on the cost:

1. The Indian Express^[1]
2. NDTV^[2]
3. The Wire^[3]
4. News18 India^[4]
5. Hindustan Times^[5]
6. CNBC TV18^[6]
7. The Times of India^[7]

These are just some of MANY sources. WP:BLPLEAD itself states that it is a guideline and exceptions apply according to the article and the specific figure. With how widespread the coverage surrounding these costs have been, the information is absolutely WP:DUE in the lead. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You’re still not addressing the question: please explain how this is given due weight relative to the overall scope of Shukla’s life and career. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The costs are one of the biggest aspects of the Axiom space mission, which have defined his career thus far. It is absolutely due. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The Axiom mission represents just one 10-day chapter in the broader arc of Shukla’s life and career. The cost of that mission is merely a fraction of that chapter. Shukla is an ISRO employee who flew on a mission assigned by his employer. He did not negotiate the mission’s price, nor did he approve its funding—those decisions were made by others within ISRO and the Indian government. Those bureaucrats who were responsible for the mission's financial arrangements are not subject to the same scrutiny on their pages, in fact the IRSO made no mention of the cost until I added it. Shukla alone is being singled out. Why? We don’t apply this standard elsewhere. The Wikipedia pages of other professional astronauts who have flown Axiom missions make no mention of the cost. We don’t list the cost of Apollo 11 on Neil Armstrong’s page. We don’t cite the price paid by private citizens who flew on Axiom or Soyuz flights. Why? Because it’s undue weight—irrelevant in the context of their careers. So why is this detail treated as relevant in Shukla’s case? There appears to be a double standard. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Include costs in body only: The lead should summarize only the contextually most important facts. The context here is Shukla, the person, the astronaut. The fee paid for the trip is not significant to his life, career except in that there is debate around whether it was stretgically well allocated. There are point of views on both sides. The fee paid to Axiom mission by the Indian government is not unprecedented and paid by many countries with much smaller economies including Poland and Hungary. The US paid a similar order of magnitude fees to Russia for Soyuz launches. But coming back to the point, WP:BALANCE the inclusion in the lead creates some sort of a guilt by association. Rigorousmortal (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for mentioning this. Made me want to look this up: for Crew-7 to 9, NASA paid SpaceX $65 million for a seat on Dragon. That price went up to $72 million for Crew-10 to 14. So the price ISRO paid was not only not unprecedented, it was totally normal. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Include in lead and body. First of all, the lead must provide a summary of the content found in the article body. Secondly, the coverage dedicated to the cost of his seat is massive enough for anyone not to omit this information from the lead. desmay (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Desmay We just established above that the cost was not massive, it's in line with what all other nations pay, and in fact, is lower than what NASA is currently paying. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Agree here we come upon a conclusion and then again someone tells the opposing statement to elongate the talk without reading the above comments ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 07:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Closing RFC

This discussion has been open for 10 days now and the consensus is aligning pretty clearly in favor of body only. Can we finally put a pin in this? Asamboi (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests is the place for this request. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, closure requested. Asamboi (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

If we go by votes alone, seven have called for inclusion in just the body and six have called for inclusion in both the lead and the body. That is in no way a consensus. Secondly, these discussions are not based on vote counts, but rather on the strength of the arguments given. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, we do not go by vote counts, especially when some voters have a documented history of sockpuppetry and topic bans. Asamboi (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)