Talk:Donald Friend

Paedophilia
I have reinstated a sourced paragraph regarding Friend's alleged paedophilia. Firstly, since he is an acclaimed Diarist, this controversy arising directly from the publication of his diaries is relevant to an encyclopedic article. Secondly, his repuation in Australia and the alleged white-washing of his alleged criminal behaviour is relevant to his legacy as an artist, a diarist and as a prominent Australian.--Design (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation to discuss this matter.
 * First, although sources should always be available for material in articles, merely being sources is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Material must also be relevant to the subject's notability. "Notability" in Wikipedia means the reason for existence of the article, and Friend has an article because, as the subject-line (first line of the article) says, he was an artist and writer. Matters which arise some 20 years after his death are not the reason for his notability.
 * Second, I can't find any evidence that any controversy in fact exists. All I find, after doing a search through Google, is an interview on radio with a self-descried film-maker who doesn't in fact seem to have made any documentary, and a brief article in what can only be described as the Australian gutter-press.
 * There is no attempt to hide the fact that Friend was a paedophile - the article states it as a fact. Your proposed edit adds nothing to what's there already.
 * PiCo (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've greatly misunderstood 'notability' in regards to articles here. Notability comes into play when creating an article here, it does not mean disregarding all material that is not integral to the reason the article exists. A perfect example, one that should help you understand your mistake, is that Mark David Chapman is notable only for killing John Lennon but his article, which I recommend you visit, does not just give this fact alone.


 * The film you claim does not exist is in fact playing at the Melbourne International Film Festival. It's called "A Loving Friend." The "gutter press" you refer to, clearly referenced in the edit you deleted, is the ABC. While I haven't looked into all this editing yet, your suggestion that the ABC isn't a notable source - not only that, but "gutter press" - makes me think you're in the wrong here, and trying to whitewash certain aspects of Friend's life. --Breshkovsky (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PiCo, I think you are exaggerating to bolster your argument. The first line of the article says artist, writer and diarist. The posthumous publication of Friend's diaries is directly relevant to his notability as a diarist. Secondly, the debate on issues arising from the diaries' publication speaks directly to Friend's legacy, and to his place in Australian art history. The debate centres around two issues: 1. Whether Australian art scholars are dismissing or whitewashing Friend's alleged criminal behaviour (child sex-abuse). 2. The publisher not seeking permission from the alleged victims to publish their names and details of the alleged crimes.
 * Also here are some references and quotes relevant to this issue: Reported in The Age in May 2008 Bernadette McMenamin, chief executive of child protection lobby group Childwise, said of Friend "He wrote diaries describing his sexual abuse of children and yet Australia still looks the other way because he produced beautiful art." Speaking on ABC Radio in November 2008 filmmaker Kerry Negara said of the publishers "instead of embracing those parts of the diaries where he talks about sex with children and adolescents as young as 9, 10, 12 years old in Bali, instead they decided to go down that route of denying it and even kind of turning Friend into a nice culturally accepted paedophile, at best." In November and December 2008 Negara's film was discussed on ABC Radio and in The Australian and the Herald Sun   In August 2009 the film A Loving Friend screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival Here's the text from the program:


 * A LOVING FRIEND	screening at MIFF Aug 2 2009. In his posthumously published diaries, Australian artist Donald Friend made shocking admissions of sexual liaisons with children across Asia and the Torres Strait, though many among the arts elite of Australia continue to deny any wrongdoing on Friend’s part. Filmmaker Kerry Negara confronts this culture of evasion and the creation of the “nice, culturally acceptable pedophile”. Her documentary encompasses the viewpoints of academics in Canberra through to unprecedented interviews with Friend’s houseboys on the island ‘paradise’ of Bali. D/S Kerry Negara P Kerry Negara, David Lightfoot WS Hiltz Squared Media L English, Indonesian w/English subtitles TD digibeta/2009. --Design (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, PiCo, the current article says Friend was a pederast not a paedophile. They don't mean the same thing, as per their Wikipedia definitions. Both terms are relevant to the issues in this article.--Design (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all convinced that you've made a case that a controversy exists. I followed the link you gave for Bernadette McMenamin and she turns out to be talking about the Henson case, mentioning Friend only in passing - this isn't evidence of a controversy about Friend. In fact, if you want have aguideline as to what constitutes a controversy, look at the Henson case - massive media coverage, police and politicians involved, even the Prime Minister. The most we have here, on the evidence you provide, is Negara and her film. Negara interviewed on an obscure radio arts show, Negara's program notes for her film at the Melbourne festival. It just doesn't stack up to a controversy. (P.s. - I was amused by this: "Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics in Canberra, speaks to Amanda Smith about whether or not you can admire a person's art, while condemning their actions." I'm surprised Professor Hamilton even thinks the question worth raising - of course you can. People think Caravaggio - a far greater artist than Friend - produced supremely spiritual art (and I agree), but in his personal life he was appalling). PiCo (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section
It has recently been proposed that a new section be added to the article, as follows:


 * Section header: Publication of diaries and criminal allegations


 * Friend's diaries were published posthumously, commencing in 2001, and lead to accusations that the publishers had not been granted permission to publicly name some of Friend's sexual partners, who were minors at the time of their encounters with Friend. There were also accusations that Friend's paedophilia had been whitewashed by Australian art scholars. Reported in The Age in May 2008 Bernadette McMenamin, chief executive of the child protection lobby group Childwise, said of Friend "He wrote diaries describing his sexual abuse of children and yet Australia still looks the other way because he produced beautiful art." Speaking on ABC Radio in November 2008 filmmaker Kerry Negara said of the publishers "instead of embracing those parts of the diaries where he talks about sex with children and adolescents as young as 9, 10, 12 years old in Bali, instead they decided to go down that route of denying it and even kind of turning Friend into a nice culturally accepted paedophile, at best." In November and December 2008 Negara's film about Friend's sexual behaviour in Bali was discussed on ABC Radio, in The Australian and the Herald Sun.   In August 2009 the film A Loving Friend screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival.

Naturally I have no objection to a mention of the diaries - although a single sentence would be enough. What I do object to is the disproportionate attention this proposed section gives to its subject-matter. It gives the reader the impression that a controversy exists around this issue, when in fact it's a non-issue. I googled Donald+Friend+controversy to see what came up, and the result was exactly zero! There is NOTHING about this! IT DOES NOT EXIST! The refs are highly misleading. Bernadette McMenamin is cited as if she's made a major issue of this - but if you follow the reference you find it's a throw-away line, an aside made in the course of an interview on a totally unrelated subject (the Henson controversy, which really WAS a controversy, unlike this). Kerry Negara is cited as if she's important, but in fact her documentary if almost impossible to find on Google and didn't even get reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald's coverage of the Melbourne Film Festival. This section fails the notability test. PiCo (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to wait until someone else joins in, but it is very likely that some variation of the material will be restored in due course because WP:BLP does not apply, there is no hint of defamation, the material is extremely relevant to the subject's life (his own diaries), and is extremely well sourced (the National Library of Australia and major Australian media outlets). I think it would be appropriate for the section heading to be simplified, and there is no need to mention "criminal allegations", since legal speculation is not relevant (the activity took place in Indonesia before 1980, and I see no reliable source with information on whether "criminal allegation" is appropriate). It could be argued that the failure of the publisher to protect privacy is not a topic for this article, and the apparent whitewashing of pederasty in Indonesia in the 1970s may also belong in another article. However, I think some mention of the "A Loving Friend" film is necessary here. Johnuniq (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I made clear in my comment above the basis of my objection, but I'll restate it: (1) The accusation that the publishers of Friend's diaries failed to seek/gain permission from some of the now-adults he once had sex with, some 20 or more years earlier, is trivial - in other words, my own reaction is, so what? Nor is it an active issue today - the "controversy" does not exist. (2) The accusation that Friend's pederasty has been whitewashed by "the establishment" is also trivial and verging on ludicrous - as Noel Coward once said of his own homosexuality, there may be a few old ladies who still don't know that DF liked little boys, but not many. (3) McMenamin's remark is being taken out of context - she was accusing the "art establishment" of trying to pass Bill Henson's pornographic photos off as art, and using Friend as an example of such behaviour in the past (that's McMenamin's reading of Henson, not mine). (4) Kerry Negara's documentary has sunk without trace - it didn't get reviewed, I don't think it got taken up (sold), and it's not a notable source. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a whole section on this subject is overkill. We already say he was a pederast - in fact it's a quote of his own words. For God's sake leave it at that!PiCo (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think the publishing permission is trivial, but I see your point that the issue is not relevant here, and I now agree that the section is inappropriate. Perhaps a sentence on the film might be added, particularly if a reliable source with an analysis of the issues can be found. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can agree in general terms. The diaries certainly need to be mentioned, but I feel the mention should concentrate on the reasons for their notability - they'll certainly be used as a source by future biographers of the important figures mentioned in them, such as Drysdale and Olley, so that's one aspect. If you feel so strongly that the question of permissions is important I guess it's ok, but as I said I can't see that it matters - it was all 20 to 30 years ago. Ok, add something to the article. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the new section, party because there had been no response to my previous responses to Pico's objections. Once again Pico I think you are exaggerating your case, against NPOV, claiming mainstream sources as "minor", and so on. (1) The addition I made does not use the word "controversy". (2) All referenced subject matter is sourced from major outlets (which your previously disparaged) and is relevant to Friend's legacy. (3) Pederasty is different to Paedophilia, see Wikipedia's own definition. (3) McMenamin's quote is relevant and neither "out of context" or "highly misleading" as you claim. (4) Whether you "think" Negara's documentary has been "sold" or is your POV, and irrelevant. (5) See my previous comments about the Wikipedia article on Caravaggio. --Design (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Publication of diaries and criminal allegations" section relevant
Is the recently added section "Publication of diaries and criminal allegations" relevant to the article?--Design (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think so... Those diaries are actually the only reason I see Friend come up today, the only reason I came to this page. A search for him brings up many articles about what the content of the diaries mean in relation to his work - it's obviously an issue but this article makes it sound like it's just a footnote, nothing to think twice about and perhaps even something that we can just forget, which kind of funnily is what some of the quotes in your section are saying, that certain people are trying to erase what is really a rather significant charge... There's even been a documentary made of this particular point, which has already come up. Why is that documentary not even mentioned?


 * The only opposition here is PiCo. He reverted the edits both times (he is the one also responsible for the edits made from an IP). He obviously has some sort of odd agenda here, first claiming the documentary doesn't exist and then trying to dismiss references like ABC as 'gutter press,' always these nonsensical reasons for denying things. He just constantly reverts/shuts down any efforts to better the article... I really think you should just forget trying to convince PiCo and instead ask for a moderator to step in.--Breshkovsky (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the section as it last appeared is not appropriate. I have not studied the details, but I do not think there is any reliable indication of "criminal". I would personally describe sex between someone over 20 and a 12-year old child as "criminal", but there is no need to color an article: just stick to the facts (has a law enforcement agency investigated the case?). Another point is that the defects of the publication (publishing names that allowed identification of some victims) is nothing to do with DF. If that fact is notable, it should be added to an article on the publisher. My opinion (from a very quick survey of the info) is that the publisher has acted in a disgraceful manner, but that fault does not belong in an article on DF.

I started trying to work out a precise difference between pedophilia and pederasty but gave up ("pederasty" involves age 12 or older, and suggests some approval, or at least a lack of condemnation?). At any rate, the proper way to handle such terminology is to give a short quote; if no reliable source has used a term, we should not either. My feeling is that a fair amount of the criticism in the recent reports concerns whitewashing by "Australian art scholars"; my guess is that such criticism would be soundly based, but I have no knowledge of that, and I'm fairly confident that an article on DF (and what he did 30 years ago) is not the right place to express outrage at publishers and scholars, however justified is that outrage.

Re some comments above: The ABC is clearly a reliable source, and whether or not a particular segment is "obscure" is not relevant (indeed, most Wikipedians would probably regard this article as obscure). I agree that the film "A Loving Friend" is obscure, but given that it appears to be the only(?) film featuring Donald Friend, the film should be briefly mentioned. We should write for someone who may read the article in a year or so, when it is likely that the film will be forgotten. That is, mention the film but do not overplay its importance (of course if the film is the basis for future developments, the article should be expanded to reflect that).

My suggestion is that we work on a shorter piece of text here. Has anything yet been published regarding the diaries that could be used in a section called "Diaries" or "Publication of diaries"? Such a section should include about half the information from the section as it last appeared. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point that the use of the words "criminal allegations" is not justifiable if no legal case has been laid, and if does not sit within a sourced quote. The section could simply be titled "Publication of diaries", but I would not remove much else in the paragraph at this stage, I still believe it all to be relevant to this article. More about the diaries could be helpful.--Design (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a section titled "Diaries", without the words "controversy" or "criminal".--Design (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey!PiCo, please discuss your issues with the Diary section you just deleted. It is fully referenced, I have reinstated it. Please consider if you still have a problem with obsessive internet use.--Design (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored the information that PiCo deleted. PiCo, maybe we can discuss improving the presentation of the material? Leadwind (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PiCo has deleted it again, without discussion.--Design (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just been alerted that I should be using the Talk page. Sorry. Ok, my point is: this paragraph is all about one person, Kerry Negara, and her doco. It's saying that this doco is at the centre of a controversy over DF and his pederasty. Frankly, I can find no sign of any such controversy. Negara was interviewed once or twice last year at the time of the MFF, but that's over and you never hear any more about her. A non-controversy. If you'd care to wait, Ian Britain is currently working on a biography of Freind, and maybe when that comes out (no publication details available) this will be hot again - but right now it's cold porridge. The article is about Donald Friend, not Kerry Negara. I'm obviously not going to change your minds, and you're not going to change mine, so I think we probably need to ask for an outside arbitrator. PiCo (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PiCo, I have previously addressed your objections, please read this whole discussion page!: (1) the current "Diaries" section does not use the words "controversy". (2) The referenced quote from McMenamin pre-dates any reference to Negara's film. (3) The inclusion of the word "Pedophilia" is apt, as per Wikipedia definitions quoted below, because of the younger age of the sexual partners: Pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children, while Pederasty is a (usually erotic) relationship between an older man and an adolescent boy.--Design (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not rewrite the section and condense it? Right now it is longer than his early life, almost as long as his career, and much of it is repetitive. Certainly that is not the most important reason he deserves a Wikipedia entry. That particular section is also disorganised and ill-written, and most of the reference links are dead or don't support the statements. The rest of the article needs to be filled out, also. I have no idea what stages his art went through or why he was successful in the 1940s. I don't even know who his parents were or what they did for a living. This article could easily be twice the length it is now, IMO. Perhaps if the article was completed the section that is causing so much discord would shrink in importance. Also most of it is not referenced. IOW, there's plenty of work to do to get this article in shape while you're waiting around for arbitration. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-write and condense the diaries section. That is the nature of Wikipedia. I agree that the article should be improved and expanded. I just checked the 11 refs in the Diaries section and corrected 2 dead links. Which statements in teh Diaries section do you think are unsupported by the refs?--Design (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I am grateful I learned about Friend by inserting myself into the argument at the POV noticeboard (I had never heard of him until then, and his art is sublime), I'm not interested enough in the topic to spend much time on the article. I did rearrange and rewrite some material last night, though. You might want to compare the difs of that edit to see what I meant in my criticism above.
 * It isn't just that section that needs refs (and I would recommend book or journal cites instead of Internet pages), but the entire page. "Following the publication of Volume 4, accusations were made that the publishers had not been granted permission to publicly name some of Friend's sexual partners, who were minors at the time of their encounters with Friend." is one example of a statement that needs to be referenced.
 * Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hill End
My father tells of himself and a friend on a shooting holiday in Hill End being asked to join Donald Friend and (poet and Bulletin man) Douglas Stewart for the day. They had kangaroo tail soup (hmm) for lunch at the house and apparently dad nearly shot Douglas Stewart in the head swinging wildly at a harassing magpie. 210.50.143.21 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Ian Ison

POV?
The film A Loving Friend screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival in August 2009[14] and at the Canberra International Film Festival in November 2009[15], and discussed again on ABC Radio in August 2009,[16] where Paul Hetherington, editor of the published diaries, was quoted as saying "I don't think that Friend behaved in ways which would attract criticism, or much criticism, from people today..."

This is the last paragraph of the article. It ends with a statement which is enitrely POV and is an etraordinarily stupid and vapid opinion upon which to finish the article. It is clearly an opinion not born out by facts. Paul Hetherington is living in the past. The fact of the matter is that "Friend behaved in ways" that have attracted far more criticism in the 21st century than they ever did in the 1960s and 70s. Is the person who decided on ending this paragraph in this manner being deliberately facetious, or what? Amandajm (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Following the publication of Volume 4, accusations were made that the publishers had not been granted permission to publicly name some of Friend's sexual partners, who were minors at the time of their encounters with Friend.


 * Another snupid sentence. Who made these accusation? Why would anyone make an accustation that the publishers had not been granted permission etc..... Who were the accusations levelled at? Friend? Why is it presumed that these people "who were minors" would want (or agree to) their names being published?
 * This sentence needs citation and those who made this so-called "accusation" need to be identified, otherwise the sentence should be removed.
 * While Friend's diaries are significant for a number of reasons, both literary and for the insight into his lifestyle, this needs to be dealt with in an encyclopedic manner.
 * Amandajm (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These controversial issues are in the "Diaries" section: (1) Friend was a pedophile; (2) the publisher should not have identified Friend's sexual partners; (3) some Australian art scholars are claimed to have whitewashed Friend's pedophilia; (4) someone from a child protection lobby group made a statement about "Australia still looks the other way"; (5) a minor film about Friend's sexual behavior in Bali exists; (6) it is claimed that the editor of the diaries made a thoughtless remark (but was it cherry picked?).
 * Which of these topics are suitable for this article? Definitely some mention of (1). A brief mention of (5) is warranted (with plain facts and no editorial). However, (2)(3)(4)(6) are really nothing to do with Friend; inserting them here is just using this article as a coatrack to complain about the reaction of society to the pedophilia of an artist 30 years ago (a period when society really did whitewash pedophilia). The section needs significant pruning to just bluntly state the facts (the diaries frankly reveal Friend's sexual encounters with minors; a film critical of Friend's sexual behavior exists). Omit the other stuff as belonging in a different article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed one referrence that pertained to Bill Henson and had nothing directly to do with Friend, except obliquely concerning the use of children as the subject of artwork.
 * I can't see how any reference is going to explain the accusation that the publishers were not granted permission.... etc. This is surely a matter of respecting the privacy of those involved.
 * As for the other statement.... it's foolishness in the extreme! There must be a better way to end the article than some spurious comment of his publisher. The man's artwork won considerable acclaim. Amandajm (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I just need to re-position the refs. all the staements in the second para of the current "Diaries" section are supported by the references in that para. Should a ref. follow each sentence?--Design (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, I need to read your most recent entries here.--Design (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, please expand other sections of this article. That would be of benefit. Since the 2006 publication of Vol. 4 of Freind's diaries, the media reports and discussions about Friend's sexual activities, and Arts scholars reactions to same, speak directly to Friend's LEGACY in Australia, at this point in time. This is just as relevant to an encyclopedic article as, for example, a retrospective exhibition of his work, in my opinion. --Design (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-postioned some of the refs. Each speaks directly to the previous sentence. Please read the ref fully before passing judgement.--Design (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed the lead, among other sections, to refer to paedophilia. I think this is arguably justified given that the Australian Dictionary of Biography now refers to his "self-acknowledged paedophilia". However, paedophilia is a 'primary or exclusive' attraction to prepubescent children. Others have claimed on this talk page that he was in fact primarily a pederast. I haven't read his Diaries, so am not in the best position to make a call either way. I edited the article after listening to the 'Books and Arts' programme on Radio National this morning and reading this article. -- Meticulo (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted the edit of 15 December 2016 by 2003:d2:63c0:6500:21c2:b335:42dc:3067, which removed the reference to paedophilia from the lead section. I'd argue that a better explanation than 'Wrong content' is needed to justify any such removal, given that:
 * the paedophilia claim is backed up in the body of the article by citations from reliable sources, and
 * it clearly qualifies as belonging in the lead section as part of an effort to 'summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.' (see: Manual of Style/Lead section).
 * - Meticulo (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hillendiana and other works
Hello, I came across Hillendiana by Friend on the Yowie page - Note 23. I have found a NLA page that mentions it amongst others at but am not sure where to put in article. I thought maybe External Links but all but one, another nla page, were broken. It's all too much for this new editor.--JennyOz 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyOz (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Donald Friend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.evabreuerartdealer.com.au/cv/friend_donald_bio.html
 * Added tag to http://www.evabreuerartdealer.com.au/friend.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115134744/http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au:80/www/friend/friend.htm to http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/friend.htm
 * Added tag to http://members.tripod.com/Barry_Stone/friend.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710233752/http://www.australianart.com.au:80/artists.php?ID=22 to http://www.australianart.com.au/artists.php?ID=22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protection request
After yet another revert, I've submitted a request for semi-protection on this article. I've also changed the word 'paedophile' to 'child molester' in the introduction, just to avoid any confusion about technical definitions of sexuality. Plus I've added an additional citation in the intro. Finally, as mentioned above - on 17 January 2017 under 'POV?' - please discuss your justifications before making any further reverts. - Meticulo (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My request has been declined on the basis of "not enough recent disruptive activity". So I've added a 'Controversial' template at the top of this page, and we'll see how we go from there. - Meticulo (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

After several months of toing and froing, I'm happy with the compromise wording which seems to have been arrived at for the lead section, i.e.:
 * " Donald Stuart Leslie Friend (6 February 1915 – 16 August 1989) was an Australian artist and diarist. He has been the subject of controversy since the publication of diaries in which he wrote of having sex with boys as young as nine years."

-- Meticulo (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The diaries don't mention sex with 9 year olds.PiCo (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Donald Friend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australianart.com.au/artists.php?ID=22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008061146/http://www.savill.com.au/artist_donaldfriend.html to http://www.savill.com.au/artist_donaldfriend.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928032619/http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/3nude.htm to http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/3nude.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928032626/http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/brodie.htm to http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/brodie.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.evabreuerartdealer.com.au/friend.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/friend/friend.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nla.gov.au/events/donaldfriend/papers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Friend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401122256/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART22857 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART22857

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)