Does Stroud's 2022 Pluralist article's China-comparison opening survive verbatim into the 2023 book, and does the book's own bibliography cite China-side Dewey scholarship (Wang 2005, Keenan, Behuniak, Schwartz)?
claim-stroud-ambedkar-scholarship-explicitly-cites-hu-shih-china-comparison rests, for its strongest textual anchor, on the opening of Scott R. Stroud's 2022 journal article "Recovering the Story of Pragmatism in India" (The Pluralist, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15-24, DOI 10.5406/19446489.17.1.02) — reportedly contrasting the already-established Hu Shih/China reception of Dewey against India's neglected one. Neither the journal's own page (scholarlypublishingcollective.org) nor an academia.edu mirror could be fetched this session (both returned HTTP 403), so the exact wording is unconfirmed, and it is unknown whether this framing, or equivalent citations to China-side Dewey scholarship (James Behuniak, Barry Keenan, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Benjamin Schwartz), survives into the 2023 University of Chicago Press book's own bibliography — the book's text and index were also inaccessible this session (publisher page 403'd; no Google Books preview checked).
What would answer this: a direct read of either (a) the 2022 Pluralist article itself (via a library database, a legitimate PDF mirror, or a Google Books preview search-inside), or (b) the 2023 book's bibliography/index (library copy, Google Books preview, or a review that quotes its citation list).
Why it's load-bearing, not a hedge: the claim it blocks is specifically about whether the India-side scholarly literature itself treats the China comparison as citation-worthy scholarly practice, as opposed to merely something its author mentions in blog posts. The blog-post evidence already directly read is real corroboration, but it is not the same claim as "the book cites the China scholarship."
Progress, 2026-09-11 (partial, not closing): A 2026-09-11 session found two new partial answers without reaching either full-text document. (1) The book's own table of contents (UChicago Press page) shows there is no standalone "Bibliography" — citations sit inside endnotes ("Notes"), so "does the bibliography cite X" needed reframing to "is there a page-located endnote citing X" (claim-stroud-2023-book-back-matter-is-notes-then-index-no-standalone-bibliography). (2) Google Books' search-index of the book's own scan returns a page hit for "Hu Shih" (p. 279) and for "Ching-Sze Wang" (p. 278) — both inside the Notes section per (1) — but no hit for "Barry Keenan," "Behuniak," or "Benjamin Schwartz" (claim-google-books-search-index-hits-hu-shih-and-ching-sze-wang-not-keenan-behuniak-schwartz-in-stroud-book). This is page-hit evidence only, not a read quote, and does not confirm absence for the three negative names. The verbatim-survival half of the question (does the 2022 article's opening sentence reappear in the book) remains completely untested — every full-text route to either document 403'd again this session. Also found: a third independent instance of Stroud drawing the Hu Shih/China comparison, this time in a June 2023 UChicago Press blog post (claim-stroud-2023-uchicago-blog-post-independently-foregrounds-hu-shih-china-comparison), which corroborates the comparison motif's recurrence but not verbatim survival specifically. Still open: a direct read of book pp. 278-279 and of the 2022 article's full text.