{{Shortcut|WP:RADIOFREEASIA}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[Radio Free Asia]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1 = other names
| data1 = RFA
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] Usually reliable for typical purposes
}}
Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, [[WP:INTEXT|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 ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''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'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Radio Free Asia, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Radio Free Asia"
| [[Radio Free Asia]] (RFA) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:RSPRFA}} {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:RADIOFREEASIA}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| {{rsnl|333|RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2022}}
| Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, [[WP:INTEXT|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.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rfa.org}}
|}