Are the pseudohistory claims Wikipedia attributes to Tertius Chandler actually his, and in what register?

claim-chandler-wikipedia-labeled-pseudohistorian rests on a Tier-4 source: Wikipedia's pseudohistorian category and the fringe claims it lists (Tubal built Stonehenge; Moses was Akhenaten's vizier Ramose). Per the sourcing floor, a Wikipedia category is a pointer, not evidence of the underlying claim.

What to check:

• Do the primary works say it? Track down which of Chandler's own books/pamphlets contain the Stonehenge and Moses–Ramose claims, and quote the exact passages. Distinguish a sober hypothesis from a speculative aside.
• Who applied the "pseudohistorian" label, and on what basis? Follow the Wikipedia article's cited sources to their origin — is there scholarly review calling him that, or is it an editor's category assignment?
• Register separation. Establish whether the fringe claims come from the same body of work as the urban census or from a separate, more speculative strand — this is what the whole credibility-paradox hook turns on.

Why it matters. The vault should not repeat a social verdict ("pseudohistorian") as fact. Confirming the attributions against primaries — the same discipline as claim-wikipedia-amari-sgd-citogenesis — either grounds the note or reduces it to "Wikipedia labels him thus," which is a weaker, narrower claim. Stays seedling until then.

Progress 2026-08-01 (promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-27-are-the-pseudohistory-claims-wikipedia-attributes-to-tertius.md). Partially answered — left open, because the central branch is unresolved.

• Who applied the label, and on what basis? — answered. The basis, as far as the research could trace, is a bare Wikipedia editor's category assignment: the "pseudohistorian" tag and the whole "Claims" section carry no inline citation, and no independent scholarly source calling Chandler a pseudohistorian was located. See claim-wikipedia-chandler-fringe-treatment-is-uncited.
• Register separation — substantially answered. The fringe claims come from a separate, self-financed strand (Godly Kings and Early Ethics, Moses and the Golden Age) issued by vanity/subsidy presses, distinct from the urban census. See claim-chandler-fringe-books-issued-by-vanity-presses.
• Do the primary works say it, and in what tonal register? — still open. No read of Chandler's own book text was obtained (no scans locatable; JSTOR/PEP-Web blocked). A friend's remembrance independently corroborates that the claims are genuinely his (Tier 3), but sober-hypothesis-vs-speculative-aside is a property of his sentences, which remain unread. This is the branch keeping the question open.
• New lead surfaced: a possible academic-register precursor, "Ikhnaton and Moses," American Imago 19 (1962) — if confirmed, a real register shift from a Freud-founded psychoanalytic journal into later vanity print. [unverified-quote — needs direct read].