Wikipedia's fringe-history treatment of Tertius Chandler is uncited throughout — neither the attributed claims nor the 'pseudohistorian' category carries a source

The English Wikipedia article on Tertius Chandler presents his fringe historical ideas in two places, and neither rests on a citation. A "Claims" section lists eight speculative theses — that Tubal of ancient Spain may have built Stonehenge, that Moses was Akhenaten's vizier Ramose, and others — introduced by prose naming his book Godly Kings and Early Ethics as where they were "discussed." Read as raw wikitext, that entire section contains no <ref> tags; all six of the article's footnotes attach to the earlier "Author" section, which covers only his urban-population work. Separately, the article files Chandler under [[Category:Pseudohistorians]] — a bare category tag at the foot of the page, carrying no footnote, no cited review, and no external source anywhere in the article calling him a pseudohistorian.

The finding separates what the article attributes from what it documents. The label exists; its evidentiary basis does not appear. As far as this session could trace, the "pseudohistorian" verdict is a Wikipedia editor's category assignment rather than a documented external judgment — the same single-propagating-witness caution the vault applies in copied-citation cases, and a member concern of moc-attribution-and-origin-myths. Both facts are self-referential claims about the article's own markup, checked against the raw wikitext, which is the narrow use a Tier-4 source is allowed to carry. This directly answers one branch of question-verify-chandler-pseudohistorian-attribution ("who applied the label, and on what basis?").