"
 Picture caption again 

This has been added yet again here footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers

I have removed it twice...tiresome....In the picture there is no people identifiable at all. I see no soldiers, I see no activists..I see unidentifiable shadows?   

It is pretty obvious what it is.  talk 
Really, welcome to the wikipedia policies and guidelines.   

I've removed it again. Unfortunately this behavior is typical in I-P conflict articles. I blame the parents. Prodego, caption info needs to comply with WP:V. ' - talk 

Well it comes from a video, and if you watch the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo it is pretty clear. Sean.hoyland, you've just violated the 1RR restriction on the article if its been reverted twice before.  talk 

Its the person that re-added it without any discussion that you should be talking to.   
Youtube is not a reliable source.  
I agree with Off2riorob.  This picture is very unclear by itself.  It could easily be captioned the other way and no-one would know the difference.    

Which is why it needs context of a proper descriptive caption that explains what is going on. Bless sins, youtube may host the video, but it isn't the source. However, it the video isn't a secondary source, which is why it isn't used for citations.  talk 
You are not making any sense at all..within policy or without policy.   
I'm not talking about policy, I'm just saying that it is pretty obvious what the picture shows. It doesn't mean the caption was the best, but it certainly wasn't factually incorrect.  talk 
That picture is a meaningless shadow puppet show. People can say is it clear what it shows but the picture will always remain a shadow puppet show.   

If we are to have this image, then we should have an image of a wounded or murdered peace-activist to balance out NPOV. Otherwise we should remove this image.   
""Well it comes from a video"" and ""it's pretty obvious"" isn't the same as WP:V compliance which is what matters. Thanks for 1RR restriction reminder but a talk page header needs to be added to that effect. ' - talk 

At Profego, it is all about which images we explicitly choose and which ones we explicitly don't. Showing one certain image without showing a related image can be be POV, as it is with this instance.   
 Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldier. look at frame 0:49. Does anyone still have any doubt about what the picture caption shows?   
@Sean.hoyland You can add one if you wish. Its mentioned 2 sections up as well. @IJA, yes but we don't have a perfect source of information. If there is an image you think would improve the article, we should certainly consider adding it. [[User:Prodego|Prodego