Radio Free Asia

Radio Free Asia

(not part of original row)
other names	RFA
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	Usually reliable for typical purposes

Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Views on International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Reliability of Radio Free Asia
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#Xinhua
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#Radio Free Asia

• Simple summary of prior discussions: TBD

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Radio Free Asia (RFA) WP:RSPRFAWP:RSPRFA 📌 WP:RADIOFREEASIAWP:RADIOFREEASIA 📌		2021	2022	Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.	1