" 
 ==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 ы 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. —   "