I don't think it is the presence of speculation itself that is the real problem in Historical Research. Many ideas have been willingly explored based on speculation.
I agree. And perhaps this reasoning will allow for the creation of this subcategory in the history section.
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.
But, isn't this the very reason we're talking about starting an entirely new section? It's been established that some ideas and speculations can't be substantiated with absolute evidence. So why continue to demand the same rules of historical research methods and standards that don't apply to this area of speculation? Can't we allow these ideas to remain as possibilities - without being shut down for not living up to higher standards of research? Of course, historians can comment on why they feel the idea doesn't live up to these expectations (hopefully in a civil manner), but if we demand evaluation by the same standards, then we really don't need a separate section.
The Speculation section could examine possibilities for which there are no facts but persuasive reasons, with a lot of latitude given to the soundness of the reasons.
The statement that all these ideas are speculations "for which there are no facts" sounds a bit condescending. I hope you didn't mean it that way. There is a difference between presenting an idea as if it were fact, vs. presenting FACTS surrounding an idea. Just because these facts don't prove the idea by themselves doesn't mean that the idea is not based upon some facts - however circumstantial or disconnected they may appear. The "soundness" of the ideas will probably determine the extent of the discussion in the forum.
I hope we can also speculate on why certain ideas take hold and others don't.
This may be one of the central contributions from the history section. Honest feedback, rational assessment and factual insights would likely be welcomed - if they're offered in a constructive way.