Talk:Zeyzoun Dam

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Syria may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Hindsight bias in this article?[edit]

Some days ago I ran across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I've been wondering whether this bias could also be present in this article... The hindsight bias delineates that in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, foreseeable and/or inevitable an event is perceived, and obviously a study has found it even in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/accidents: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 In this respect I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, and whether the disaster is presented as more foreseeable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against the disaster. Obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective focusing on information that argue FOR the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that argued AGAINST the event (or: for another outcome), which then, naturally, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeablitity... So I wondered whether this article might be affected by hindsight bias as well and should be therefore be checked again for this?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:64FF:4320:ABEE:49DE (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]