This is a modification of the Flammarion Woodcut is an enigmatic...

This is a modification of the Flammarion Woodcut is an enigmatic woodcut by an unknown artist. It is referred to as the Flammarion Woodcut because its first documented appearance is in page 163 of Camille Flammarion’s L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire (Paris, 1888), a work on meteorology for a general audience.

Note. The Text “Urbi et orbi” does not appear in the original Flammarian woodcut. SteveMcCluskey 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The text “Urbi et Orbi” appears on this image because it is the cover design for the punk album Urbi Et Orbi (EP). As such, it is inappropriate as an illustration for anything except articles about that album.76.204.93.188 14:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This image with Urbi et Orbi, is pure manipulation and unlogic in this context. There is no religion on the image, therefore the afterwards added description is just fictioning - stealing the idea of nature for their instrumentlizing moral. And in the same time the take the focus of the astonishing fact, that there is an universum out there and it does not need any religious explanation. Therfor the pope decided to give this his Urbi et Orbi / again he manipulates the fact that there is no church in the image, but now it is. For the user it should be more obvious AND both version should be alowed. But the original is the one which a wikipedia should support, as peopel come to wikipedia, because of the logic and not for manipulated views and stolen ideas! —Tales23 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note the two wheels on the left: obviously they are not stars; it seems to be a hint to the wheels of the throne of God, described by en:Ezekiel. Even though this very nice picture is subtly derogatory and POV, as it attributes to a church missionary, opinions derived from fairy tales about reaching the base of a rainbow (see picture) and false information on medieval science, still it was prepared by an artist with stronger biblic information than shown in the above comment. Pinea

This coloring is not particularly good, compared to the many others that exist. The tree, for example, is miscolored — the lower branch appears transparent. The lake in the lower right is filled in green instead of blue, the entire “landscape” is flat green, with no attention to detail. If a page is going to be redundant enough to contain both a black-and-white and a colored version of the same file, it seems worthwhile to at least have a “good” colored version. Many are available. -71.218.10.216 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is it that persists on using this colorization instead of the black & white original? Quite aside from the fact that it’s not faithful to the drawing and that it contains an extraneous Latin text, it’s simply not the original illustration, but rather a manipulation of it (a rather ugly one, in my opinion) by an anonymous person. It’s not even one of the colorizations that has appeared in print outside of Wikipedia. -

text at 

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Universum.jpg