His strategy in defending the content of "Wife selling (Engllish custom)" is not so different to how he defends the ridiculous "Guy Fawkes Night" article. Whether sources discussing the custom with respect to present day attitudes exist or not, much less any actual instances of it occurring, they are always inadmissible in Eric's work.
The very idea that not a single one of those books listed in the references doesn't say, hey, this practice is considered a wee bit misogynistic these days, AMIRIGHT? He could find a source to state the obvious. indeed he could simply cite a dictionary to state it if he genuinely can't, it wouldn't be original research. He just doesn't want to. That would pollute the yellow tinted pages of his fan letter to history.
The artificial separation of his article from the globalised main article, which has obvious crossover with at least the parts which discuss the practice in America etc, is another symptom of his chronic OWNership problem. If the global article is garbage, he doesn't care one bit, as long as he gets to call *his* work a Featured Article. Some encyclopedist. As you highlighted, he has barely even touched it. Strange for someone who, if they're doing it right, doing the sort of research needed to write an FA, must have a hell of a lot of ways he can improve that article beyond copyedits.
The statistics don't even support the claim he wrote the FA. His asshole friend Parrot of Doom added more text, which fits with the model that he is more of a copyeditor even on the articles he calls himself a co-author. PoD is a woman, and despite the fact she couldn't be a worse example of how Wikipedia's innate hostility is off putting to women, he no doubt considers this to be another feather in his 'friend of the wimmin' cap. He's no friend to women except those who are fully on board with his methodology and attitude. Gender traitors, in other words.
As for how writing this one article backs his claim, well, it remains unaddressed.....
In general, his frequent claims he does this or believes that, often have the air of unbelievability about them. Take this post......
My wife has a PhD, and she says that one of the reasons she did it was that she didn't want to be called "Mrs ..." (we weren't married at the time). But she's merely amused when someone phones up or knocks on our door asking for Dr Corbett and automatically assumes that must be me. It's just a reflection of the society that we live in, and that we all should want to change, men and women alike. It's not a war between the sexes, as it so often seems to be portrayed, or at least it shouldn't be.
When does this ever happen? What scenario features someone knocking at your door, seeking "Dr. Corbett", while not knowing in advance the gender of who they are looking for? Even the overworked drones in call centres working their way through contact lists which might simply list initials (or his wife might have an ambiguous first name), it is hard to see how or why they would bother to act surprised if Eric answers the phone and says in his gruff northern voice, "No" to the question, "Hello, is that Dr. Corbett?".
Not to mention the rather ridiculous idea that 'oooh, I would no longer be called Mrs.', would ever factor in anyone's decision to embark on a PhD. You can't envision that level of stupidity even in someone who marries this silly ferret fucker. If he isn't just making it up, he is making his wife look stupid to make his own thoughts look more sound. Y'know, like a particular kind of bloke does.
And why is he even mentioning his wife's private life on the internet? Does he perhaps presume she would be OK with that? Perhaps because she has a gold band on her finger, denoting her as his.......no, I can't believe it. NOT ERIC!
It's the usual bullshit from the usual bullshitter. Don't legitimise it by proceeding as it it's not, just kick him in his cancer free nuts and be done with it.
He's clearly reading this thread, so if he hasn't got the guts to come here and dispute any of this, we have the real measure of the man.
