For WAN replication we have a cross-datacenter replication which works on an AP model.
I was simply trying to point out that while you may have a very good argument as to why Couch is better, the network partition argument is not sound, and you may want to look for a better argument to make.
I'm personally against single masters because they are SPOFs. With a master, at some point there needs to be a single arbiter of truth, and if that is unavailable, then the system is unavailable.
It's that these are fundamentally very different databases with different trade offs. You can't just take one and adjust some API calls and expect things to work in a similar way. It only confuses people when it's quietly ignored and others assume that since it wasn't pointed out to be wrong that it must be the same thing.
I've had far too many conversations with people who use Couchbase that can't tell the difference that I would say that it's just general confusion. It's lax work on Couchbase's part and a thorn in the Apache CouchDB project that there is no effort to help clarify the fact that they are indeed independent and now very different databases.