Humanities desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 25[edit]

A city containing a city?[edit]

Is it right to say that Delhi (the National Capital Territory, NCT) contains Delhi (a city), which contains New Delhi (also a city)? Do each of these areas have a different mayor/governor?

Would that be the same case with London containing the City of London?

Does this happen anywhere else on the world? Bumptump (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like New York City and New York State, there are multiple entities named "Delhi". As of the recent 2022 reorganization, The NCT of Delhi is composed of three municipalities (cities), known as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the city of Delhi), the Delhi Cantonment and New Delhi Municipal Council, which governs New Delhi itself. So New Delhi is part of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, but not part of the City of Delhi. Shelly Oberoi is the head of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and serves as Mayor of the city of Delhi, while New Delhi doesn't have a mayor, the municipal council has a chairperson, who is not popularly elected. The Government of Delhi governs the NCT, and like many Westminster-system based places, has a split executive consisting of an elected Chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, and a appointed and mostly ceremonial lieutenant governor, Vinai Kumar Saxena. Regarding the "city of London" and "London", the City of London is really a sui generis legal entity with legal powers and organization dating back to time immemorial; no one really knows how old it is; William the Conqueror granted a charter that merely confirmed its existing rights, having existed even then back to a time beyond which anyone could remember; the site of the Roman Londinium was essentially abandoned by the end of the 5th century, but the walls mostly remained, defining what would become the City of London, which was formally re-established in the 9th century by Alfred the Great (see Anglo-Saxon London). Though many of the Anglo-Saxon kings had used Winchester as their seat, London had the right to crown the King; one really couldn't claim the right to be considered King of all of the English unless one were crowned in London (meaning what we now know as the City of London). What we today call London is really Greater London, and explicitly does not contain the City of London, which is surrounded by Greater London, but is entirely independent of it, as it has been for more than a millenium. The city of London has the Lord Mayor of London, who is elected through an arcane election procedure that dates back to 1189. The Mayor of London governs the city of Greater London, and only dates to 2000, when the office became the first directly-popularly-elected municipal chief executive in Britain at the time. This video from CGP Grey explains the City of London/Greater London relationship. In some states of the U.S., where there are multilayered administrative divisions (state-county-township-municipality) there are places where there are townships and cities that have the same name and lie next to each other (and which the Post Office treats as one postal city) but which exist as distinct municipalities, see for example Plattsburgh, New York and Plattsburgh (town), New York. --Jayron 32 16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I popped in to bring up the insane example of New York towns, but there's a few other weirdnesses in the US that I can share. Virginia has an arcane system where cities can be independent of counties, so we get a situation where Fairfax is politically outside of Fairfax County, but is still the county seat of the county. But then there's the simpler issue of towns completely surrounding others, like how Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are bordered only by each other and Los Angeles, or any other of the many situations where a large city surrounds a smaller one. An interesting one near to me is tiny University Heights, Iowa, which is completely surrounded by Iowa City, but contains the main roads to the University of Iowa football stadium, and so is purportedly funded almost entirely by speed traps set up on that road on game days. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the OP's use of containing meaning "is a lower on the administrative hierarchy than" rather than "is an enclave within", and answered on that basis. Neither New Delhi ~~or the City of London is~~ part of their surrounding municipalities, but each are part of higher order administrative divisions (the NCT ~~and England, respectively~~). Delhi gets confusing because it is the common name of two distinct entities, one on the same level of the "org chart" as New Delhi, and one a level higher. It is part of the "Union Territory of Delhi" but not of the "City of Delhi", though in common speech both uses of Delhi may be used somewhat interchangeably and confusingly so at times. --Jayron 32 18:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei, Taiwan, is wholly surrounded by New Taipei City. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with local government in the U S, but before the 1974 reorganisation there were "county boroughs" which governed themselves and were administratively independent of the geographical counties they were in. And of course, the town of Berwick in Northumberland is across the Tweed and thus in a different country from Berwickshire. Although Jayron says

What we today call London is really Greater London, and explicitly does not contain the City of London, which is surrounded by Greater London, but is entirely independent of it

the City of London has representation on the London Assembly, which is the democratic arm of the Greater London Authority. To clarify that, the administrative units within Greater London are the 32 Greater London boroughs and the City of London. 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:ECC5:8A57:B434:4E93 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GLA has representation from the City of London, but does not have authority over it. The representative for the city is not distinct to the city, but represents the City and East constituency. The GLA doesn't really even have authority over the 32 boroughs; statutory power over the boroughs lies primarily with the borough councils, which manage all of the normal municipal affairs of the individual boroughs. The GLA really only manages and handles the budget for "Greater London" as a whole, and in doing so, as noted in that article, "It is a strategic regional authority, with powers over transport, policing, economic development, and fire and emergency planning." And of those, the only one it really handles that also covers the City of London is transport. The City of London Police is independent of the GLA, which manages the Metropolitan Police, which does not have jurisdiction over the City of London. Neither does the GLA manage "economic development" for the City, that's the express and exclusive responsibility of the City of London Corporation. A good summary of the role of the boroughs in governance of London is in this video by Jay Foreman, which really shows that Greater London really mostly operates as 32 mostly-independent cities, with everything from trash pick up, to building permitting, to paving the streets, etc. is the exclusive purview of the borough councils. The Mayor and the London Assembly is largely only responsible for regional planning and boosterism for the whole region, and its role is largely advisory. --Jayron 32 19:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The City of London has no direct control of the fire service, public transport and traffic initiatives like the London congestion charge and the Ultra Low Emission Zone, all of which are in the perview of the Mayor of London, whom the City can only influence through the Greater London Authority. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering driving into the City of London involves paying the charge at an impervious boundary that the City of London has nothing to do with, I'm not sure that matters much. But I take your point. However, you'll note that I said "the only one it really handles that also covers the City of London is transport", which I'm sure was confusing, so what I really meant there was "the only one it really handles that also covers the City of London is transport". I hope that clarifies things. Your point on fire services is valid, and one I missed, however. --Jayron 32 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)>[reply]

Two things about Jayron's videolink: the City's armorial supporters are not "small dragons": they are griffins. The Vatican City, while popularly known as "Rome", is of course an independent country. 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:ECC5:8A57:B434:4E93 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. Coat of arms of the City of London notes, correctly I might add, with references, that they are dragons. CGP Grey may have his flaws, but insufficiently researched is not one of them. Those are dragons. --Jayron 32 19:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, St George and the Griffin is not a well-known legend. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's a separate tale about George's favorite boot polish. One major difference is that a griffin has a lion-like body, while a dragon has a reptile-like body. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a city in London that is not the City of London. DuncanHill (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the City of London is different to the 32 London boroughs, but while there is more ceremony attached I wouldn't say it has more powers than the boroughs. In fact things have gone the other way - from 1971 the Mayor's and City of London Court has been nothing more than a county court. The Inner and Middle Temples fall within the boundary of the City of London but it has very little jurisdiction over them. The original Metropolitan boroughs, dating from 1900, acquired the powers of the parish vestries, and their boundaries were coterminous with those of the parishes. As regards the heraldic aspects, you can add "winged lions" to the mix [1]. This informative piece also explains the origin of the phrase "bull in a china shop." 2A00:23C3:9900:9401:B9A0:FA15:D4C5:303F (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More: Santa Monica, Beverley Hills, and City of Commerce are all wholly contained within Los Angeles City.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @User:Jayron32, I understand your concern to draw attention to the special status of the City of London, but it is incorrect to say that the City of London is not part of Greater London. This is laid down in statute law, the London Government Act 1963 §2(1), "The area comprising the areas of the London boroughs, the City and the Temples shall constitute an administrative area to be known as Greater London." I don't think it could possibly be clearer. Perhaps you were thinking of the fact that the City of London is not one of the London boroughs, as it is not listed in Schedule 1? The Act preserves some of the different powers and structure of the City, but it also makes a distinction (now largely meaningless) between inner and outer London, and no one would argue that this excludes Hackney or Harrow from Greater London. Matt's talk 08:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I appreciate the correction! --Jayron 32 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Piedmont, California is totally enclosed by the City of Oakland, California, but they are separate cities, just as the City of Industry, while enclosed by the City of Los Angeles, is not part of that city. Piedmont and Oakland are both within Alameda County (as is the also-distinct City of Alameda, California), while Los Angeles and the cities she surrounds are within Los Angeles County.

A roughly similar situation appears to apply to Quezon City in the Philippines: both Quezon City and the City of Manila lie within Metro Manila.

Mexico seems a little more complicated. Mexico City (México D.F. for Distrito Federal) is not part of the State of Mexico, just as Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) is not part of Virginia or Maryland. But Greater Mexico City does include México, D.F., as well as parts of the states of Mexico and Hidalgo.

But although I've lived in California and studied her politics, I'm certainly no expert on Mexico or the Philippines, so I welcome any corrections, explanations or elucidations. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Detroit completely surrounds the smaller cities of Hamtramck and Highland Park, Michigan. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires (disambiguation) lists a similar situation in Argentina. --Error (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Llandaff is wholly contained within the City of Cardiff, Wales. It has its own bishop and cathedral and is popularly thought of as a city within a city: but it was never chartered and sadly doesn't attract official city status in the United Kingdom. MinorProphet (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverse" of the criterion of embarrassment[edit]

Is there a term for a "reverse" application of the criterion of embarrassment, i.e. that if someone says something complimentary about their enemy, it's likely to be true? Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear (to me) why complimenting an enemy might be related to embarrassment. Opposing generals have been known to admire the enemy's tactics, for example. Be that as it may, the opposite of embarrassment is pride. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is referring to the "criterion of embarrassment" rather than "embarrassment." The criterion of embarrassment means that if a person were to record something very embarrassing about their past experience, it is likely true because the person has no reason to keep a record of such an event. It is primarily used in Biblical academics. The opposite would be a person who did not record something very non-embarrassing about their past experience. I would consider that humility, letting someone else make a record of it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My use of "reverse" is probably a little unclear, but I'm asking if there's a name for the idea that a good thing said about one's opponent is likely to be true, in the same way that a bad thing said about oneself is likely to be true. Lazar Taxon (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Criterion of embarrassment. --Jayron 32 18:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a term for this criterion, or even if it is a plausible criterion, but something I have observed several times may be related, namely that a political attack on a person often begins by saying something complimentary about them. ("Doofus T. Mudfuddle does his job with admirable energy and dedication. Unfortunately, hia results are less admirable. In fact, they are distressing. ..."). --Lambiam 22:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Praise sandwich --Error (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion of embarrassment loses its power as a criterion of authenticity when an author is aware of the possible application of the criterion to their writings. They may then choose to wrap a falsehood they want to be accepted as true in an embarrassing narrative, accepting the embarrassment as a minor cost in achieving a more important objective. A similar consideration holds for the complementary criterion, so in applying it one should always be aware of the possibility of an ulterior motive. The criterion may not have a name for lack of passages to which it may be applied. Are there, for instance, passages in the New Testament that are complimentary for adversaries of Christianity? --Lambiam 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what is the[edit]

difference between mortgage insurance and home insurance ? 2601:482:4280:C3B0:6DA5:C63C:79DC:B94E (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage insurance will pay some or all of the mortgage should certain things happen: death, severe illness, redundancy etc. Home insurance will recompense you for the damage if your house is flooded, burnt down or collapses etc. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but:

The key difference between mortgage insurance and home insurance is who it financially protects. Homeowners insurance mainly protects the borrower’s investment, while mortgage insurance protects the lender’s investment in your home.

Mortgage insurance vs. home insurance: what’s the difference?

Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are Turkish marketplace and neighbourhood guards (Çarşı ve mahalle bekçileri) the same unit as night eagles (gece kartalları)?[edit]

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gece kartalları is an informal name for what are more formally called çarşı ve mahalle bekçileri.^[2] --Lambiam 22:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]