January  UTC Hello Xeltifon Someone is simply going by our rules on this There wont be enough work that you can do to make it acceptable to mention in the lead that zoophilia is a sexual orientation It has been made extensively clear on this talk page and elsewhere that it is a fringe assertion to call it a sexual orientation per WPFRINGE The WikipediaFringe theoriesNoticeboard would also make this clear if this matter were taken there Zoophilia either shouldnt be called a sexual orientation in this article at all or can only be called one with WPDUE WEIGHT it is already mentioned with due weight lower in this article You saw where it is mentioned lower as you added it in However such a sexual orientation mention was included lower in the article before at some point different points in time   And with regard to what you stated in this edit summary about the lead that is not exactly what WPLEAD says Citations may or may not be allowed in the lead but are usually advised to be in the lead for controversial topics Zoophilia is clearly a controversial topic  And regarding bolding the terms alternative terms should be bolded in the lead Sometimes they are also bolded lower in the article at first mention See WPBOLDTITLE I would object to your removal of the alternative terms from the lead per WPAlternative titles but also per WPAlternative titles If there are at least three alternative names or there is something notable about the names themselves a separate name section is recommended And as you know there is a section in this article to discuss these terms Still it is sometimes best to mention the alternative titles in the lead as well especially if one or more of them is very well known as an alternative title       And going back to this edit forums are not WPReliable sources