Zephyros
I am not in favor of a new section. That being said, I am not against it, and if it is important enough for people I am willing to help, so I voted for the first option.
Well...
...Speculation is - my humble opinion - a necessary tool inside Historical Research...
Rather it is the failure of some speculators to understand that once a speculation is made then it is examined to see if any facts support it. Furthermore, if the facts don't then it is taken as a personal affront (and sometimes the personal gets mixed into it on both sides). An even bigger issue, to my mind, is the unwillingness to accept or learn about historical research methods and standards that are used to evaluate the likelihood of a speculation. True historical research cannot operate without them. To not use them fails the field of historical knowledge.
Several of the sections under "History and Iconography" - like the Rider-Waite and Thoth sections - don't hold to absolute historical standards. I think they make good examples - with RWS a little more relaxed than Thoth. People speculate freely about the meaning of various symbols, etc., although, Crowley, Waite, Smith and Harris (among others) are invoked as primary resources and final arbiters, if applicable.I *do* want to see a place where ideas are encouraged, speculated about, and possibly checked against, to be proven or thrown out as the community provides reasons why or why not something would be valid.
I don't see this happening under a HISTORICAL title. If you called it Scholarly Pursuits or something to that effect, theory and conjecture could still be welcomed.