Just read some of the FAQ's and it is utter nonsense. How is anyone who didn't read that supposed to understand the colloquial difference or whatever it says. I would love to see the citation for the "observations" that supposedly happened. I don't believe there is any way to adequately warrant not calling this a theory. Those FAQ's just sound like a jumble of wordplay and partly coherent mentions of Wikipedia policies. P.S. Is gravity a theory?-