Talk:Juan Pablo Montoya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] WikiProject NASCAR

I've added this page to WikiProject NASCAR. Please remove it if y'all feel it's too early to add the page. DiegoTehMexican 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I came here to add him. Royalbroil 02:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, he'll be there soon. 4u1e 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does Monty live?

Hey 24.107.146.226, whoever you are - JPM's website says he resides in Monaco. I have no source for Florida but I'm leaving it there anyway. Please verify. DannyBoy 02:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JPM resides in Monaco. He used to live in Florida when he was racing in CART until 2000. Regards, JMV
Muchas gracias. DannyBoy | Talk 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
According to ITV he lives in Monaco but has houses in Florida and back home in Columbia. His wife was working in Florida untill her pregnancy and probably will do again soon.
On a related note, I thought his wife was Spanish? --MartinUK 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, his wife is Colombian. --Cbohorquezm 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

In teh midst of all the hype about Lewis Hamilton, I was wondering if anyone knows whether JPM has any African, native American or otherwise non-European ancestry? He doesn't look purely Spanish to me.--MartinUK 23:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's Columbian, which is non-European. Recury 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've been clearer that I meant non-Caucasian. --MartinUK 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Ok... After having revamped the article I still had some spelling problems (even after having changed the article like 10 times from 200.75.70.196), ... User:C_trillos

[edit] CART, Champcar, Formula CART

when JPM took the title it was officially name CART FedEx series.... Champcar is incorrect as Champcar bought the CART in early 2000's....

Formula CART was a common name used all over latin america to refer to that series... I was wrong it is not the official name... but JPM didn't won the Champcar.... but CART... User:C trillos

  • The common name for the CART car was a "Champ Car" even then, because "IndyCar" was trademarked to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway after the split between CART and IRL in 1996. The series was the "CART FedEx Championship Series" from 1997 to 2003 - "Champ Car" derives from that "Championship Series" because CART considered itself the true heir to the National Championship Trail. It's all very convoluted :) Suffice to say, they are one, the same and interchangeable. It would be incorrect technnically to say he won the "Champ Car World Series Championship" because that's the modern name - but to say he's the "Champ Car" champion is workable enough. I did not know that "Formula CART" was used in Latin America to refer to the series. I've created a redirect for that name to Champ Car World Series. :) FCYTravis 12:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to delete the "FedEX" from the name of CART Championship Series as this is a brand used for publicity and is nothing to do with the nature of the series... for the CCWS is the same you don't call it: Bridgestone presents the Champcar... etc, etc... you just call it either Champcar or CCWS... as you know this change can be reverted just observe there is a point with some spelling corrected if you are willing to do so... C_trillos.

[edit] 2003

From the 2003 French GP summary:

Ralf Schumacher was allowed to pit first during the 2003 French GP while Montoya was leading. Both had chances for the WDC. Ralf had worked hard that weekend and resulted in a very competitive setup for the car, Montoya and his engineer copied that setup, then Sam Michael (the sporting director) wanted to favour Ralf on the race for his hard work. At the end Ralf won with Montoya second. Ralf and Montoya were evenly matched in terms of speed. C trillos

From the 2003 Italian Grand Prix weekend coverage:

Ferrari worked hard and came with lots of new parts and improvements while Williams weren't able to further develop their car. C trillos.

[edit] Bias

"not only the best Colombian driver of all time but in one of the most charismatic stars in the motorsports world wide"

It's POV. Sounds as if written by a fan.

Also there are a lot of remarks in the article which sound as if the author blamed only the car of JPM all the time whenever he failed. It's too POV. Eg. "Williams, however, was unable to keep the pace with the newest improvements from Ferrari" (in 2003). Well, it's POV too, because I know a lot of people who would say that from Monaco on Williams was the best car/tyre combination.

Keep it in context!!! we are talking after the 2003 German GP!!. which means the Italian GP. Ferrari worked hard and came with lots of new parts and improvements while Williams weren't able to further develop their car that season. C trillos.

Anyway, it's debatable at least, so I suggest to leave such remarks out of the article. And this was just one example, the article is full of "let's just always blame the car/team, never the driver" kind of remarks. I think it needs to be written more neutral.

It is clearly stated Montoya has made mistakes and spins!!.

"As an addition, Ralf Schumacher had a better relationship within the team specially with the sporting director which resulted in several in-race advantages for the German. "

Ralf Schumacher was allowed to pit first during the 2003 French GP while Montoya was leading. Both had chances for the WDC. Ralf had worked hard that weekend and resulted in a very competitive setup for the car, Montoya and his engineer simply copied the setup then Sam Michael (the sporting director) wanted to favour Ralf on the race for his hard work. At the end Ralf won with Montoya second simply for that pit decition because as you know Ralf and Montoya were evenly matched in terms of speed. After that GP Montoya signed for McLaren, situation that was confirmed at the end of the year. C trillos

POV! It's just an opinion: Montoya's and his fans' opinion. It was very probably only true in Montoya's mind!

This is an antifan opinion, To be neutral You must avoid being a fan or an antifan. C trillos

LOL! I'm not an antifan at all. But Wiki must be neutral. If you have factual proof of Montoya being deliberately disadvantaged by Williams compared to Ralf Schumacher then come up with it (and no, "Montoya told so" isn't a proof!).

"The adaptation process took place in the winter testing season and he entered the world championship with great expectation as the boring on-pit battles between Mclaren Mercedes and Ferrari had made viewing figures drop."

Proof? As far as I remember the Hakkinen-Schumacher battles between 1998 and 2000 were quite popular. I wouldn't be surprised if they had higher viewing figures than what F1 nowadays has (despite of Montoya being in F1). Anyway, calling the pre-Montoya F1 "boring" is a POV, too.

They were quite popular for the people who were watching, fewer than in 1997 let's say, (formula 1 TV broadcastings went onto be very expensive) (we are talking about 2000) I can only recall 1 or 2 wheel-to-wheel action between MH and MS. one of them at Spa in 2000. that was all. I can not call the "pre-Montoya" F1 boring because the boriest F1 has been from the year 2001 ownwards (exexption made of 2003) and furthermore Montoya is Not the centre of F1 as Schumacher is. It is clearly stated... He has failed to take it by storm.... furthermore JPM did entered the F1 with such a hype that he has failed to live to that reputation C trillos

A huge amount of this article is so biased towards him that it could almost be written by Montoya himself. Whilst the facts he is an extremely good racing driver, a lot of the language goes too far in blaming others for mistakes; like everyone, he has faults himself. Reading the article, it sounds like he should have been 5 time World Champion by now. Personally, I think the language of this article needs serious revising. [Sev]

Let's see what can be done C trillos


"Montoya was on track for a possible win at Magny-Cours when his suspension failed." Is this really accurate? From what I remember he was slower than Kimi all afternoon. --MartinUK 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a wikipedia phrase for it, when something is true by default, as it cannot be disproven. As long as anyone is running in a motor race, it is possible for them to win; Jacques Villeneuve won the 1995 Indianapolis 500 after being penalized two whole laps. --Chr.K. 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite what's implied though! :-D Midland are 'on track to win' every GP they enter, but I can confidently promise to eat my shoes if it happens. 4u1e

[edit] Entry into F1

While I agree with recent attempts to make this para more neutral, the second sentence of the current version ('There was great expectation as this move was considered a natural step in the career of the Colombian driver.') doesn't really say anything. Could someone dig out media articles from the time and craft a sentence describing what the excitement (which I do remember - I'm not questioning it) was specifically about?

Now, I did add a reference earlier today to a BBC news piece from before Montoya started in F1 (see the 11:20 28 April revision), which summarised a large number of postive views by figures in the racing community. This is not POV - it's a professional journalist reporting views expressed by others, and not just any others but significant people in the community. I did not use wording that 'added and quoted these views as real or matter of fact', I said that the journalist "reported widespread anticipation in the racing community of his debut in the series, including comparisons with Ayrton Senna". This has now been removed, which I feel was a mistake, and replaced with an uncited and generic comment. I'll think about this and come back to it later, but I think it'll have to go back in - I can live without the Senna reference, if it makes people uncomfortable for some reason (although that is what some people were apparently saying). Feel free to comment in the meantime. Cheers. 4u1e 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've had a look at the WP:NPOV page. For comparison purposes, the phrase I introduced was as follows
  • In early 2001 the BBC's Jonathon Legard reported widespread anticipation in the racing community of his debut in the series, including comparisons with Ayrton Senna[1].
the current phrase is
  • His entrance was very much anticipated by the Formula One Community due to the talent and raw speed showed in the America's based series.
I'm not saying my version is perfect, it could for example say what those interviewed by Legard anticipated, but the current version is a bald statement - who anticipated it, and is it verifiable? Looking at the examples of good practice given on the WP:NPOV page, such as
  • "According to most Australians, The Beatles are the best rock music group ever [Rock and Roll Survey 1998]"
  • "In 1989, Drs. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah shocked the world by reporting they had discovered a means to tap energy from nuclear fusion at near to room temperatures."
I would now propose that the phrase should now be along the lines of
  • His debut in Formula One was widely anticipated by the media and by motorsport figures such as Bobby Rahal and Patrick Head, due to his driving ability and on-track combativeness [2]
I'd like a couple more refs to go with that though - for example, Patrick Head isn't really a neutral source, so I'd like a view from someone else. I'll try and dig some out. As ever, discussion is welcome. 4u1e 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are getting stuck with a statement-proof thing... Not all the statements have to be quotes from someone else so they can be proved... and in the other hand not all the quotes or articles about a given person are necessarily neutral. To be more specific, Montoya was indeed anticipated by the F1 community... proof?.. the word on the street... who are they ? all the fans, all the commentators... How to realise that?... If you were paying attention to the motorsport scene at that moment you knew it... exagerated articles as those you are quoting cannot be used as a proof of something...saying Montoya was anticipated as the new Senna just because some reporter said so is likely a mistake.... 4u1e, you have the reason about the section being written in a too "generic" form, but first neutrality then form.... So the little paragraph can be worked around with different words but keeping the neutrality... as you say head is not source of neutrality in this case... and Rahal was not involved directly with F1... as I told you, it was the fans who were anticipating him and the media and a couple of team bosses.... regards, C trillos

Hi there. Legard was the BBC's chief Formula One correspondant and commentator on radio for quite a few years. Pretty fair as an expert source and sufficiently neutral - particularly as in the first version I didn't quote his report as fact, but reported what he had written as a view. I don't believe it is sufficient (ultimately) to say 'if you were there you knew' - it's actually quite a contentious statement (to a non-expert reader) which should be quite easily supported with contemporary news reports. Verifiability is the thing!

It is precisely correct that to say that 'Montoya was anticipated as the next Senna just because some reporter said so' - in the same way that it is correct to say 'It is wide reported that Diana, Princess of Wales may have been murdered by the British Secret Service'. It may be a ludicrous statement, but lots of people believe/d it, and I can support that statement by referencing many UK newspapers. I would agree that one ref from one reporter is not sufficient here to support 'wide anticipation', though. As I say, I'm not fussed about keeping the Senna reference - it's too emotionally loaded anyway - but I am quite sure that the statements here can and should be referenced.

My original point was that there was loads of press coverage (and therefore useful references) at the time of the excitement over Montoya arriving in F1. I'm not hung up on proving that Montoya was 'the next Senna' or 'the best driver in world motorsport' but rather that people were saying those sorts of things at the time. All the references need do is establish that there was anticipation, not that it was well-founded or reasonable anticipation (looking at things now, it probably wasn't!). I agree that more than just that one article would be needed. Head, as I have said, is not neutral. It doesn't actually matter that he wasn't neutral as such, but as one of Montoya's employers, the fact that he was enthusiastic about him isn't particularly interesting. Rahal's quoted view is interesting, he is/was neutral, and no he wasn't in F1 at the time, but that has no bearing on the relevancy of his view. For what it's worth he has a European driving background as well as a US one and has a broad view of the sport. Anyway, I'll look up some more contemporary news stories next week - I'll have access to better resources then. Cheers. 4u1e 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 season

Is there any good reason for the 2005 season section to be as long as it is? All the previous stuff summarises the season. For 2005 we get a detailed blow by blow account. I suggest that it should be edited down closer to the length of the 1999 - 2004 seasons.

[edit] 2002 season

C trillos, I think we're improving this article quite nicely. We seem to be circling around the 'Montoya was the only one able to challenge Schumacher' comment in the 2002 season section. Your latest version has added 'wheel to wheel'. I take it what we're getting at here is that none of the others actually diced successfully with Schumi senior on the track, but beat him in pit stops etc. For the statement to stand it would have to be true that that no-one did so at any race all throughout the year. My recollection is that Barrichello had Schumi well beaten at the Austrian Grand Prix that year - he may not have diced with him on the track, but as Rubens outqualified and outraced the German, it seems a rather academic distinction. I'll look at the races that year in more detail but I'm still rather doubtful that the comment can really be supported, especially given that three other drivers did win races - including Monty's team mate. Glad to hear what you think. 4u1e 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been through the race reports for 2002 (mostly the The Independent and the The Guardian) and I am confident that the statement "He was the sole driver to be able to challenge Michael Schumacher wheel-to-wheel on the track." cannot be supported as it stands. There were at least two occasions where Schumacher was beaten on the track by someone other than Montoya:
  • In Monaco Coulthard outqualified the German and, more importantly, then held him off on track over the last few laps of the race to win.
  • At the Nurburgring, Barrichello overtook Montoya and both the Schumachers on the first lap and went on to win. Commentators seem unanimous that Rubens was just faster that day.
Added to that, the sentence implies, although it doesn't say it explicitly, that Montoya was the only driver who raced and beat Schumacher. This is certainly not true, as in addition to the two races above, Barrichello had him well beaten in Austria before being told to move over on the last lap, although since Rubens was faster in both qualifying and the race he did not 'compete wheel to wheel'. The Brazilian beat Schumi again at Hungary and Monza, although less convincingly. I think what the 'wheel to wheel' comment boils down to is that Montoya was the only driver to make several forceful overtaking manoeuvres on Schumacher during the year (as he had in 2001), although it has to be said that they did not often have a good outcome for the Colombian - in Brazil for example he definitely lost out through over-aggressive driving.
This suggests that the phrase should read: "Although he did not win a race, unlike Coulthard and his team mate Ralf Schumacher, Montoya was one of the few drivers to compete with Schumacher on the track. As in 2001, he stood out for his forceful overtaking moves on the World Champion, although several times he lost places through clashing with the German." I have amended to this. Happy to discuss. 4u1e 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with all, thanks for your work!!... C trillos

The scary thing is how much work it takes just to verify and tweak one little phrase!! 4u1e 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 steering

The 2005 season summary includes this: "After driving for Williams for four full seasons, Montoya found the McLaren Mercedes car unpredictable, often claiming it felt like the steering wheel was not "attached" to the rear end of the car."

I doubt he really expected that the steering wheel would be attached to the rear of the car, four wheel steer has been banned for a few years now. Trouble is, this is obviously a garbled version of an original quote, but I can't correct it without knowing what the man himself said. Anyone know where the reference comes from? 26 April

Take a look to oversteer, understeer.... Have you ever driven a go-kart at least?... if no, then go for it and you will see that in order to be fast you must learn how to correct the rear-end with your opposite-lock, left foot braking technique... needless to say, steering an open wheel car has effects in both the front-end and the rear-end, despite just the front wheels receiving the steer input.... ah, remember F1 cars are rear wheel drive. ... What Montoya was trying to point out is the fact he was not receiving feedback from the rear-side of the car, and when the car was oversteering it was too late to correct it, at the same time the impact of the steering inputs over the rear-end was not perceived by the driver C trillos
Yes, I've driven a go-kart, and a Formula Renault, which was fun! (I've also had a bit of formal education in road vehicle dynamics ;-)). You're absolutely right about how the cars are steered, but the steering wheel is still not connected to the rear of the car - it's a very odd way of putting it - so I would be surprised if that's what he actually said. I think my point stands that the words may well not be what he actually said - it would be nice to have the actual quote, which would remove the need to discuss the issue. Cheers 4u1e 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
mmmhh, I heard those words from montoya himself during an interview with his wife... I agree, the words are kind of difficult to understand... I was trying the other day to find a source where to quote from safely but I had no success... I think if no suitable source is found the comment can be replaced by its meaning so the common reader doesn't go into a misunderstanding... C trillos 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) C trillos
I agree - I remember hearing something similar too, it just seems a weird way to put it. I may turn something up when I eventually get to search through the newspaper archives again.....(I may even find that it actually is what he said. In which case I promise to stop complaining!) 4u1e 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Latin American driver

C trillos - that's fine, but it does need a reference, sheer results over the years don't really bear it out. Suggest wording would then be: "Montoya was voted top Latin American driver of 2005 by FOX sports awards" (I don't know whether this is a vote, or a panel of experts - amend as appropriate!) 4u1e 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've done it. He won it in 2003 as well, apparently. 4u1e 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspension/Driveshaft

"He retired from the lead of the Hungarian GP due to a broken driveshaft. His team mate had a similar failure 8 GP before, which shows the differences in suspension geometry between both McLaren's as the torsional forces are carried out in different manner."

I don't understand what is meant here - why does a similar failure earlier in the season indicate that the forces in the driveshaft are carried out in a different manner? 4u1e 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A driveshaft in an F1, for what it is showed to us, is very different to a "common" driveshaft ... this thing is very thick and very short and the diameter is big... so it looks like a cilinder instead of a shaft... the engine suppousedly gives its torque through the driveshaft, which is built with a mixture of strong and exotic materials... the torsional forces are high so are the materials and technology to build them so it is very rare to have a broken one... from the engine to the tyres everything is connected... so what happens to a gear ratio has implications to the differential, what happens to the suspension, for some very strange reason seemed to have consequences in the driveshaft... that was the comment (not supported) that weekend (and the weekend of Kimi's DNF in imola)... the other not supported comment was that of JPM doing a lot of stuff in a simulator McLaren have, in which he seemed to find some new areas of improvements specially related with suspension geometry... So the same way people talked about Alonso going to McLaren was the way comments of this calibre were surrounding.... Note:that link to "multi-link suspension" is likely wrong (or innacurate)... speculation states that those guys use a combination of double wish bone and multi-link... who knows?...
So to conclude, it seemed the McLarens had differencies in the suspension but many things Montoya found were used on Kimi's car who prefers a lot of oversteer. a very rare failure was not about to happen twice in a top team like McLaren if it wasn't for a difference in suspension and SW...
taking a review to my words, it is a compilation of a lot of speculative comments, but sometimes there is the only type of info we have in F1. We have no proofs of Bennetton cheating in 94, still we say they had active suspension, TC, LC and so on... So it's hard to decide how to say something about F1. C trillos
C trillos, thanks. Reading that back, the logic goes:
  • Raikonnen had a suspension failure early in the year. (Agreed)
  • The suspension geometry affects the loading on the driveshaft (Agreed)
  • It is rare for a driveshaft to break (I'll take that as correct for now!)
  • A driveshaft breakage is therefore likely to be due to caused by changed geometry (Agree - although it could also be caused by a faulty component)
  • JPM had developed a new suspension geometry during the season (I don't remember this one, but I'll accept it as paddock gossip for now)
I get confused by what you mean after this - are you saying that both drivers used the new suspension geometry, but that they had different set ups? This would likely be correct, but I still don't see why Montoya's suspension failure 'proves' that the two drivers had different set-ups. :-S 4u1e 07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His name

Juan Pablo, or Juan-Pablo? Want it right for his 500-Mile Race stats. --Chr.K. 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, his official spanish language website uses 'Juan Pablo' - I wouldn't be surprised to find that the hyphen tends to get put in by native English speakers like me who aren't used to the concept of using more than one name. I suppose the website's not entirely conclusive, though, anyone got a better source? 4u1e

Juan Manuel Fangio, Diego Armando Maradona.... you can see the complete name is by using the two names... those dashes are not used... now for legal pourposes in latin america a person must give his/her two names and two surnames...

When he raced in CART he just went by Juan. Maybe he'll start doing that again. Mustang6172 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podiums and Wins

I am planning to remove the Podiums_and_wins section, per discussion on the WikiProject Formula One talk page. For further details, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Podiums_and_Wins. --Brian G 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted 'Monaco race report'

I've replaced the rather detailed summary of the Monaco GP with a shorter version. The previous words are at talk:2006 Monaco Grand Prix if anyone wants to use them in a race summary there. 4u1e

[edit] NASCAR

I think this article could do with some clarification of the structure of NASCAR (in particular the relationship between the Busch series and the Nextel Cup) from someone more familiar with the topic than me. I think I understand it, but have some concerns that a reader new to the topic would be confused by Montoya racing in two similar series in the same season. Cheers. 4u1e 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources / copy-cat tag

Dear F3rn4nd0, The recently added tag claiming for more sources and/or being a copy of other site needs to be more specific.

1. The article was started from scratch and then rebuilt and then it's been improved in prose and tone. It is a joint effort from some wikipedians. Claiming the article resembles another is widely disrespectful and if you are talking about the downloadable pdf on montoya's site you need to know that they are the ones who are copy-catting this article (they just copy-pasted it and added photos).

2. The missing sources is certainly a point to have in mind but it is genuinely an effort to make it as complete and neutral as possible, not every line needs to be quoted as the article on Michael Schumacher let's say.

So please be more specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.116.104.196 (talk • contribs).

you are probably misinterpreting the intended message of the template. "This article or section needs additional references or sources to improve its verifiability. It may be using the words or ideas of other publications in its text, without citing the source(s) of the information."

This article was surely made with information read or seen in a media outlet, which is the real intention of the message. Asking to cite sources and add references doesn't mean accusing of plagiarism (nor the message says literally that is plagiarism), but one of the "rules" of wikipedia is to add these. If you have any issues with the template I recommend you create an account/sign in and discuss that issue with the cretors/editors of that template not here since it has nothing to do with JPM. --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - not me that made the original comment, but that template certainly strongly implies plagiarism, which, as it happens, isn't one of the problems with this article, although a lack of references is. 4u1e 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
F3rn4nd0, I think the template used for tagging the article in fact implies a different situation for what we have here, so the template is not apropiate, however is not a matter of adding to every single line the "citation needed" thing... one thing is to write an article when the sources (people, your own knowledge, and yes media) are available then if the citations were not introduced when created then a Massive effort would be needed later to add them. The article is not thought to be recommended as featured article and it is unlikely to find every source that validates an article as complete and acurate as it is right now, just look at the effort that implied the revamping of Michael Schumacher article and that's not even a featured article but it's about someone who truly is one of the most representative figures of the sport. So the message is, the article before nascar is quite good, the nascar section is being too blog like, montoya didn't win any championship and thus the effort requiered to validate the entire article is likely to be not found... plus 80% of wikipedia articles are lacking of citations but it is the effort of the members that make the articles readable and accurate, so unless you agree to tag the 80% of the wikipedia articles as well, I think the tag should be removed, instead if you have the sources handy then you can add them... but you know most of the times I'm lazy enough to not to use my account so for adding citations for what has been said is likely a task that I would avoid.
The article can be kept as it is and then it can be improved step by step in a good hearted way... no need to innacurate tags, opinions? C_trillos
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/a/Talk%7EJuan_Pablo_Montoya_40cb.html"