POV Section Dale Chock has argued in this edit summary that Bidwell 1962 is a maverick mistake riddled proposal and that mention of it gives undue weight to a fringe proposal However there are two issues that I think complicate the matter 1 It s my understanding based on Stankiewicz 1962 that the analysis proposed by Bidwell 1962 is one of a number of similar analyses While he doesn t provide full citations Stankiewicz lists six scholars that he says make similar claims Ludolf Olmstead Orenstein VanCampen Hodge Kuznecov Similarly Folejewski lists also without full citations of scholars who seem to implicitly adopt an analysis similar to Bidwell s Trager Cornyn Karcevskij I don t think we should remove a paragraph about something broader than Bidwell 1962 simply because of problems with Bidwell If we had a better understanding of the place that these other scholars as well as the ones I listed in the archives have in the general scholarship it might help us get a better understanding of whether mentioning this analysis really gives undue weight I have restored the paragraph in question with a POV section tag to draw others to this discussion 2 Several editors have alluded see above and in this archived discussion to a more robust dispute amongst Russian linguists between a five vowel analysis prominent in Moscow schools and six vowel analysis prominent in St Petersburg that is whether represents a phoneme or an allophone I m not familiar enough with this dispute but I wouldn t be surprised if the six vowel analysis also collapses the phonemicity of hard soft contrasts in ways similar to Bidwell and others Again looking into sources would help out in this regard Either way I don t think we have enough sourcing present in the article to back up this removal of a citation request which is why I have restored it