Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 May 20

= May 20 =

British Empire
Please would you assist, during the height of the British Empire, and to narrow the scope, lets say just during the Victorian era, to what side of the political spectrum did the vote and government fall? I understand from research that the current political parties were not in existence. I understand too that there was a vote every 4 years or so and that the governing party may have changed to one run by the opposition but the information I find doesn't show which party had which lead, right or left. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Whigs (British political party) and Tories (British political party)
 * Pretty sure you must not read those as "left" or "right" in the modern sense, but just see for yourself
 * also Conservative_Party_(UK)
 * Gem fr (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec)There's a lot of relevant information in our article List of United Kingdom general elections. Important things to note are the change in the number of eligible electors over time and the removal of rotten boroughs, where several MPs were elected by a handful of voters. Of course the Whigs were not the same as the Liberal Party (UK), let alone the current Liberal Democrats (UK). Mikenorton (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say that in the spectrum of the day, the “center-left” predominated... however, what constituted the spectrum of “left” and “right” in those days was very different from what it is today. Ideas that are mainstream today were quite radical back then. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 81.131.40.58 -- as hinted at by Gem_fr above, during parts of the Victorian period, advocates of the rights of factory workers were to be found among the Tory party. Some, such as Michael Thomas Sadler, Richard Oastler, and Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, were completely sincere, while others did it to annoy the Whigs (who were aligned with factory owners)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It can be a bit misleading to try to draw parallels between 19th century and modern politics. Gladstonian liberalism espoused "...limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets... self-help and freedom of choice. Gladstonian liberalism also emphasised free trade, [and] little government intervention in the economy...", which reads rather like a modern Conservative manifesto. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * At least early in the Victorian period, large rural landowners were influential in the Tory party, while factory owners and big merchants were influential in the Whig party. Whigs were usually more open to change and "reform" than Tories were, but the kinds of reform that got passed with Whig support were often favorable to the interests of factory owners and big merchants... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's because in modern terms, in Anglophone politics, BOTH modern Conservative (center-right) and Liberal (center-left) traditions grew out of classical liberalism. Modern terms like neoconservatism and neoliberalism are often used by actual political scientists to describe overlapping political philosophies, often shared by the same people.  People like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are often described using both terms.  It should be noted that in U.S. popular press, the term "liberal" is used in place of "leftist", but in the traditional sense even the Republican Party is a liberal political party, though it is decidedly NOT a "leftist" party by any stretch.  Liberalism usually means a belief in small government and market economy, what is commonly called in the U.S. libertarianism, but both parties largely espouse some version of it, with the Republicans favoring economic libertarianism and Democrats favoring social libertarianism, but both being basically liberal parties in the "classical liberalism" sense.  Even in Victorian times in the UK, the major political divides were between which kind of Liberalism; it was not seriously considered that non-liberal ideas like monarchism or absolutism or authoritarianism were viable political philosophies in the Anglophone tradition.  During the long 17th century, over the course of things like the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, liberalism became the almost inevitable political philosophy of Britain and America (see also Whig history).  The most important thing to remember, especially in American political discourse, is that the term "liberal" is applied in a very different sense than actual political scientists would use it.  All modern American and British politics is essentially liberal in nature, though it varies in which side (right or left) it falls on.  -- Jayron 32 12:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Name of an architectural element
Does someone know how to call the iron "gazebo like" structure on the top of the roof?--JotaCartas (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The nearest architectural term I can find may be Cresting (architecture), though this looks rather large for that. Still looking.  -- Jayron 32 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't know its term of art, but it also functions as a viewpoint, accessible from the roof. See this picture taken from on top of the roof (The address is Rua de Alexandre Braga 24 in Porto, by the way, should that help someone find more info on a possible term). ---Sluzzelin  talk  16:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it is a type of Belvedere (structure), which is defined by purpose, not design; a belvedere is any design element whose purpose is to give someone a beautiful view. -- Jayron 32 16:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. Belvedere looks good to me. In Commons will be "Category:Belvederes (roof appendages)" --JotaCartas (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Could it be an aviary? Widow's walk also looks interesting. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was an aviary, it's not now, as it lacks any mesh to confine the birds (as is easily seen in the best resolution). Also, aviaries are usually placed where people can readily see the birds, whereas this is rather inaccessible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it be a Cupola? (It seems to have the same function, but none of the examples on that page look like this one)
 * I think you could call the domed structure supporting it a cupola: "A cupola is a small tower or dome-like feature projecting from the top of a roof" (What is a Cupols?. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't look intended to only present an enjoyable view. It's too small, uncomfortable, unprotected from wind, no seating, etc. The stairway going up to it (if it's not a ladder) must be pretty narrow. It might be more of a lookout tower since it's at the highest possible part of the building and built for use by someone who is standing up. Regarding aviaries, I thought there was a type where the birds aren't confined, but they treat it as home, there is bird seed there, etc. Maybe it's not built for that either. Is there a way to ask whoever takes care of the building? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This guide to buildings in Porto simply describes it (no.57) as a "beautiful viewpoint in forged iron". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Architectural ironwork" gets lots of Google results. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Porto City Hall, it is a commercial/office building, built in 1929. The structure in question is in wrought iron, and beyond the decorative function serves as an observation deck. Does not seem to have served as bird cage. To me, the best name so far is "belvedere" but still open to other opinions. Thank you all for your collaboration. --JotaCartas (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)