Talk:ATA Martial Arts

Redirects

WTTW (this is pointing to an article on a television station) and WTTF don't go to anything realted to Taekwondo.RJFJR 19:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the word 'oriental' from the page. It is offensive. The correct term is "Asian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.102.138 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Should it be Taekwondo or Tae kwon do? The article uses one and the title uses the other. RJFJR 19:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Taekwondo is an English spelling of three Korean syllables. Tae, Kwon, and Do. In Korean, the three syllables make one word/idea. Therefore, the most correct way to spell it is taekwondo. When a Korean says Taekwondo, the emphasize the first syllable tae /teh/. Whether or not is is caplitalized, I do not know. I have very little knowledge of capitalization rules. Hope this helps. NatalieOne 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannot copyright a martial art form?

How can you copyright a martial arts form? Exactly what law says I cannot watch someone do an ATA form and then mimic the movement in demonstration for others? The closest thing I can find is a copyright on choreography, but a (for example) ballet dance is substantially different from a martial arts pattern. Have they ever brought a successful copyright claim? Mbac 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need to bring the ATA image into this article. It has A(red) T(blu) A(red) with a white figure kicking through it. P

The following is an attempt at answering the above question by Mbac 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) "The American Taekwondo Association trains and certifies thousands of instructors at over two thousand schools across the United States. ATA forms are protected under US and global copyright laws, and are the traditional basis of rank promotion in Taekwondo."

The terms Songahm, American Taekwondo Association, Karate 4 Kids, Tiny Tigers, and others are all copywrited and to use them without express permission by the person who owns the copyright is breaking the laws protecting the intellectual property of the originator of these labels.

Your question is regarding the Songanm forms. The forms and the exact order of the moves they contain are copyrighted. This means that I cannot present these forms as my own intellectual property - I must credit my source, ATA. ATA has not (and cannot) copyrighted the front kick, high block, or spin kick. These are common knowledge and ATA has no claim to the origination of these moves/techniques.

In normal life terms: A seven year old girl can watch a video of a guy doing an ATA form on YouTube, immitate it, and show it to her parents and friends legally. A college art major is allowed practice his cartooning by immitating mickey mouse and his companions and show his friends and teachers his skill at cartooning. Neither is misrepresenting the works they are immitating. This is similar to making copies of a video that I bought at a local store. I am allowed to copy it for my own use only. Once I start claiming it's mine - selling it, I am going too far. If you are adult age and copy an ATA form you see on a video or at a tournament, you aren't breaking the copyright law. If you then go out and teach it to others claiming you created it, claiming it is not from ATA, or that the form is just a bunch of moves in a random order, then you are breaking copyright law.

If it doesn't make sense yet, think about a melody, your favorite melody by your favorite artist. Mine is Baby Mine from Disney's Dumbo. Now imagine that someone has taken your favorite melody and decided to call it a different name and claiming credit. They have the right to use the notes in your song. They may even use the same intervals (the difference between the notes)as the ones in your favorite song. But, they are not allowed to used the same notes, intervals, and rhythm in the same order and combination as the original composer. That song belongs to its composer until the composer decided to sell it. ATA's forms belong to only their original creator (H.U. Lee) and the people he decides to sell the right to those forms.

Regarding your question about an actual case where ATA has a successful copyright claim, I do not have access to that information and would encourage you to call ATA headquarters and ask them. They might answer the question, I don't know. I hope I have answered this question thoroughly and clearly. If not, please let me know and I will try to be more clear. NatalieOne 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This reads like an ad.

This article is directly from the corporate website. Someone needs to clean this.

I will work to improve the article (less add-like) without adding too much copywrited information about the intricacies of ATA. If you can, please site any parts that sound more like an add that just usefull information. If you tell what is wrong I might be able to fix it. Thanks. NatalieOne 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My experience with ATA

My background - My family has been involved with the ATA for several years. I am an instructor (part time) and a black belt.

As someone pointed out, the original article is the 'company line'. The ATA vigorously protects and promotes its intellectual property. The member schools and clubs (smaller, part-time schools) are really franchise operations, and that really captures the essence of my opinions of the ATA, both good and bad.

If I had more time (and skill) I would edit the article with a bit more balance. Lacking that, here are some quick notes.

Pros and cons:

Pro -

Standardized Content – 1000's of schools around the globe, and they all teach the same thing. Your martial arts training will not suffer if you need to change schools. One look at your belt and rank stripes, and your instructor will know exactly what material you are working on. And there are many schools - 3 or 4 in my small city alone.

Challenging Content – ATA rank requirements are more challenging than 'plain old' TKD. We had some non-ATA students transfer in, and they had a lot of catching up to do. Example – 'plain old' TKD white belt form has one hand technique, and no kicks. The ATA white belt for has 2 hand techniques and 2 kicks.

Complete Content – Programs for kids, adults, physically challenged people, with lesson plans, teaching strategies, weapons, etc.

Instructor Certification – Instructors must be trained as teachers, certified, and background checked, not just know the material. (When you walk into 'Joe's Karate Parlor Jujistu Emporium' how do you know what his qualifications are? A neat looking certificate from Grand Master FooFoo?) That said, some ATA instructors will still rip you off – make you sign long term contracts, or make you retest and repay testing fees at any opportunity.

Well Policed – At ATA events, like tournaments, there is no macho posturing and no fights – unlike some 'open' tournaments. Instructors or members that get in trouble with the law can loose rank and loose schools.

Safe – Equipment and rules for sparring are safer than Olympic style TKD, and you must attain a certain rank before you can spar, and up to that part, you must complete drills that prepare you for sparring, to teach control. I have a small child who is now sparring, and I feel completely at ease. Furthermore, if someone wants to transfer to Olympic style, they usually do very well because ATA rules are more challenging. Some ATA students have performed very well in Olympic style.

Con -

Copyrighted Material – If you leave the ATA, your cannot legally teach the forms, etc.

Equipment Monopoly – To attend or compete in an ATA event, you must wear an ATA provided uniform, ATA sparring equipment.

Some in the leadership are all about making money - There is always some new program or offering from headquarters that are new ways to take money from people.

Neither Pro nor Con -

Costs – Schools are allowed to basically charge what they want. It can be expensive, like other martial arts schools, or next to nothing. Instructors set their fees (with upper end limits set by the ATA). Testing and equipment fees are fixed from that ATA, and instructors are allowed to add a percentage on that and keep the difference. (I teach as part of an after-school program. I don't make a dime, I just like helping kids.)

My personal take on the ATA

I'm an ex-member of the American Taekwondo Association and been with them for ten years (since 1992, quit 2002) earning my first degree black belt in 1996, and 2nd degree with trainee instructor status in 1999.

In response to the previous posting by an "instructor," here's what I think:

Quote: "The ATA white belt form has 2 hand techniques and 2 kicks." NOT exactly true. There are five hand techniques to the white belt form: high block, low block, punch, side block, and knifehand. There are only two kicks: front kick and side kick.

Secondly, there is no true monopoly on uniform and sparring equipment. While many schools obey this monopoly uniform policy including letting children wear uniforms with the lettering on their back, other schools choose not to pay the monopoly and find more affordable options. I've visited a few of these ATA tournaments and people use whichever brand, as long as they have headgear, hand, and foot.

Some other thoughts: I feel that the ATA is just like many other schools to be like a "McDojo" or what I call, a black belt factory. It's easy in the start, but as the ranks get higher, people (especially parents) spend more money investing in something that I feel has no real use in the real world (like who kicks above the waist and especially the head in a real fight?).

Also, why break boards? If you want a reference, watch the first season of the Showtime program called "Penn and Teller B.S." It's just science people!

Lastly... parents, don't bring your children to tournaments around the country to become "World Champion." They should be in school getting a real education with a real degree that is useful in the REAL world. Would you really put the words "World Champion" in your job resume? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akit (talk • contribs).

Maybe some people enjoy it? Are you so against participation in other sports? Baseball, football etcetera are no more useful than what they teach. kaiti-sicle 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a physical therapist or as a personal training I find that having the ATA and the triple crown I hold to be quite powerful. I would suggest the martial arts to a number of clients, and have. Even when I was establishing the business I had write ups in the paper I made sure that the martial arts was mentioned. In general I have and would tell other absolutely list it on your resume. Why wouldn’t you? I had a rougher time getting the triple crown than writing any stinkin 75 pg thesis paper that got me a degree!!! tojac 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Songahm Taekwondo" section

This section needs some work in a different direction than it is presently heading. I see this section as being more about the philosophy behind Songahm Taekwondo, the Songahm Star, etc. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what it should be about? I am a trainee instructor in ATA and that's what Songahm is based on. That section could be expanded on the differences between the Songahm forms and WTF forms, for example, however, the philosophy is a very important part of Songahm Taekwondo. Just personal opinion, however. Other thoughts?? Progdrummer17 17:37, 12 February 2007

That seems to be where I'm thinking. What makes Songahm Taekwondo "Songahm"? What makes it so? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Songahm basically describes the style of taekwondo developed by Eternal Grand Master H.U. Lee and his brothers. Songahm simply means "Pine Tree Temple". Songahm is important to put in this article because it describes the style of taekwondo taught by the ATA, and the ATA, along with its sister organizations (STF, WTTU, etc.), are the only organizations that teach in the Songahm style. So, everything about ATA defines Songahm taekwondo, and vice versa. You probably wouldn't have a wikipedia article about Songahm Taekwondo itself, so that information must be contained here. However, if I have the time, I'll add more information about ATA itself to the current article. Progdrummer17 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, The translation "Pine Tree Temple" describes how each belt rank, and respective poom-sae (form), represents a stage in the growth of a pine tree from a tiny seed. For example, white belt represents a lone seed without experience, orange belt represents the beginning of a day as the sun rises, etc. Progdrummer17 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparring segments, board breaks

It seems we need more information on these two elements of a student's training. Perhaps we could bundle this with one-steps? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am willing and able to add some information about sparring and boardbreaking, but I will not be able to site anything other than my own knowledge as an ATA Certified Instructor, school owner, and high rank black belt. Is that kind of information appropriate for Wikipedia? NatalieOne 20:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Korean Taekwondo Council?

I've never heard of such a phenomenon. Anyone care to explain?? Also, at the 2007 Spring Nationals Tournament in Las Vegas, there was a flag on the wall near the other organizations called the "Asian Traditional Taekwondo Union", different from the WTTU. Anyone care to explain that one??? Progdrummer17 13:26, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

Three links come up on Google for "Korean Taekwondo Council". There's Wikipedia, Harman's ATA, and a Yahoo listing that ultimately lists a Karate for Kids school. No mention from ATA itself, and no good third-party mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If no information can be found prehaps it should be deleted Coho (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

4th and 5th Degree Testings

This is more for personal information, rather than necessarily to put on the page, but my instructors and I would like to know:

1. Is it true that you have to be a certain age to test for 4th degree black belt? And does anyone know if that age is 17, 18, or something different?

2. Is it true that to test for 5th degree, you must be a school owner who tests at least a certain number of students every 8 week testing cycle? If so, does anyone know what that number might be? Also, does that number increase for each subsequent rank (6th, 7th, 8th?)

Thanks for the help. Progdrummer17 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would ANYONE like to help me out?? I asked this four months ago haha. If you know the answer, please enlighten me.

Thanks again. Progdrummer17 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Progdrummer17,

First, If you are an ATA student, ask your instructor - this is the official answer for most questions in ATA. If you have an interest in earning a 4th or 5th degree black belt from ATA, please go to ATAonline.com and find a school in your area. Most instructors would love to schedule a time to speak with you about your martial arts goals and questions.

Second, regarding your questions - There is an age requirement for 4th degree black belt. About 4 years ago it was changed from 21 to 18. Requirements for ranks are set as a baseline for which students may strive. Testing for any rank between Orange and 3rd degree black belt required your instructor's permission. Testing for 4th degree black belt and above require permission from ATA itself. As requirements for high rank testings are frequently being revised, this is not an appropriate place to list the most current version of which I am aware. NatalieOne 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, NatalieOne. I am currently attending and teaching at an ATA school, but due to complicated circumstances with previous instructors/studios, I am a higher rank that the studio owner and head instructor. I was interested if you had any information about my questions, more for curiosity than anything else. I appreciate your information, however. Thank you! Progdrummer17 21:41, 24 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.45.231 (talk)

The requirements for 4th & above ranks were changed a few years ago, and may change again in the future. Beyond your midterm and rank tests and holding the 3rd degree rank for at least 3 years, 4th degree previously required you to be a black collar instructor and 21; now you must have a collar of some color with black in it and be 18. 5th degree previously required you to be a school owner for a certain number of years; now there are requirements for you to be a positive influence of a certain number of people for at least 4 years. That positive influence is measured in "leadership points", which are gained by being a school owner or head instructor, judging in tournaments, going to pro-tech camps or leadership camps, guest judging at other schools, etc. Of course, the fastest way to achieve the leadership points is through being a school owner or head instructor, but it's no longer required. All of these things must be certified by headquarters and approved by Grand Master. Tonyhansen (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Someone keeps deleting the criticisms section outright. Please state what your objection to it is. If It is simply unbalanced, then please make an effort to balance it rather than delete it. There's nothing wrong with having a criticism section per se. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Deletion of an entire section is not a minor edit. Do not mislabel it as such. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, to get things started, the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Criticisms section is WP:POV and at the very least needs to be rewritten to adhere to WP:NPOV. The first sentence in said paragraph is unsupported and needs a citation. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So after reading the WP:POV and the WP:NPOV I would think that the comments, to a degree, do not fall under "criticism" as much as opinion or viewed assumptions. What are the thoughts around that? tojac 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also Section

I re-added links to the Wikipedia articles on McDojo and Bullshido. They are there to enlighten readers on what these terms mean, so that they can decide for themselves if the terms apply to the ATA or not. Personally, I earned a 1st degree Black Belt from the ATA in 1997. I have a few criticisms of it, but overall my experience was positive. I think more people should learn martial arts and ATA schools are on average decent places to do this. You largely get out of them what you put into them effort-wise. The people who earn 1st degree Black Belts in two years are the ones who display talent, dedication, and hard work. Those who don't display these traits take longer or never reach black belt. Some schools may be better, some may be worse. There are many franchises and independent schools much like it in terms of how belts are given out. There's no reason for some martial artists who don't attend this kind of school to be snobbish toward it. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, but McDojo is linked above, thus removed. Bullshido I consider a bit of a stretch. I was in the ATA from 1989-1992, and I wouldn't describe it as Bullshido. Additionally, Bullshido is listed in the first section of McDojo. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'm in agreement with their removal then. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fortunately can say I have been with the ATA some 15 years now and it is a good tning. Some things are not perfect, what is. I find it interesting that if you go to any of the other martial arts styles on wiki there is no mention of McDojo or any criticisms. Just and observation! User:Tkdkidick 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more of them should, but the lack isn't grounds for removing the criticism section here. Also, the ATA is not just a martial arts style, it is a franchised organization. The criticisms may not be applicable to all ATA schools, but they may be applicable to varying degrees to a significant number of them. I don't know. What I do know is if you follow those references, you'll find a number of critics. Now, it is a legitimate question to ask whether online forums are a reliable enough source to be used on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually ATA is NOT a franchised business. That's why it is an association, associated through the style of Songahm. I think a lot of the forums are I hate to say "bitch" forums in general. Not necessarily ATA related but just, why charge "X", why have this many belts or classes. That kind of thing. Online forums are just that people stating there beliefs. No data to back their statements up. From what I have heard. Now if you had an accredited report from some where stating some of these issues. OK, however the terms McDojo is inflammatory to any style or business. I had never even heard the term until I found wiki. I have a friend in another style and he has some of the same issues that ATA parents have. Traveling a lot that stuff. It does come down to the kids and he does it for them. They know no difference. tojac 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not strictly franchised like a fast food chain, but correct me if I am wrong: Don't instructors of ATA schools have to be trained and certified or something? There is a central authority that governs instructor training, establishes rules, sells equipment, and so forth. There is standardization by a central authority. That's not simply a bunch of independent schools who all happen to be teaching the same style of martial arts. In any case, that is all beside the point. The question is: do the references cited for the criticisms meet Wikipedia verifiability standards (WP:Verify)? It would appear that online discussion forums do not. Any objections to this assessment? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. ATA instructors must be certified to teach. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Even as an associated part of the ATA you can utilize the copyrighted material and not use the ATA name. You do have that choice. However the regions govern themselves. So the seniors "watch" over the certification process for their particular region. Just like any other organization it does fall back on ATA as they are the ones that grant the actually certification. So I would guess. And NO ATA does not sell equipment of any sort. There are a couple of martial arts suppliers you can by from. However World Martial Arts is the only one permitted to use the ATA trade mark, once again, as far as I know. The fact that you say they is a standardization is almost funny, ITF and WTF are so poorly governed it is not even funny. Have you ever tried to get a hold of someone at there headquarters, good luck with that. As Far as I know ATA is the only one that even has standardization. I have been to two different ITF schools in the same town and been taught different material, or altered material. How is that?

As far as the assessment I would guess that les then lets say 2 1/2 % could be called McDojo's. They have some 1500 associated schools/clubs thru out North America. I have only heard complaints on a few. How many have been sited by the BBB? That would be a good source to back this up? I mean If I thought there was an issue I would report it. But is that an issue you can take up with them, I am not sure.tojac 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, so the ATA doesn't sell equipment itself; it licenses the right to sell equipment with the ATA name to another company. This is quibbling over relatively minor details. As for standardization, you'll notice I only said the ATA was standardized. I said nothing about ITF or WTF. So I don't see what is funny. Now, if you step back from your knee-jerk reactionary defensive mode for a second, why don't you address the issue about Wikipedia references that I raised in my previous post? In case you haven't noticed (and it seems that somehow you haven't), I think my interpretation is favorable to your complaints. To repeat: Anybody have any objections to my interpretion of WP:Verify in relation to the quality of the references provided for the criticisms section? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say? I did not and do not feel like it was any type of reaction, just stating what I thought to be the facts. So to the point, I am not sure what you mean by " my interpretation of WP:Verify", I just do not understand what you are trying to say. I am a layman's term kind of guy. tojac 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everything I write, your first and primary reaction has been to take issue with it and nitpick the details while ignoring my main point. If you haven't followed the link yet and read it, perhaps you should try that. Wikipedia has various rules and principles for adding and removing content; the one I linked to is one of them. The question I asked you and anyone else interested in editing this article is this: do the discussion forums used as sources for much of the criticisms section meet Wikipedia's quality standards? If they don't, then it is the burden of whoever wants to keep the criticisms section to find better sources, perhaps official statements by prominent martial artists or items published in newspapers, etc. By the way, to sign your name with a date stamp just type four ~ in a row after your post. Wikipedia will fill it in for you. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

“your first and primary reaction has been to take issue with it” don’t you take issue with the things you love. Any who, your point is now clear. I will think about it the fact does it or does it not meet Wiki standards. I wont jump the gun at the moment. I will calmly ponder the thought! tojac 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but don't let it blind you to everything else! :o) I think eliminated the section on WP:Verify grounds is preferable to simply trying to delete it over and over again until the critics get tired of reverting it. If it can be removed on such grounds, the burden of proof is shifted to the critics who want to put it back in. They'll have to find higher quality sources. And if they do, you or someone else can work on balancing the section out. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 04:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

tiger/bear cubs

I was going to add a section similar to this to the belt description section. But I couldn't find a reference other than on individual school descriptions.

Tiger Cubs, Bear Cubs

Some schools separate very young students out from the Tiny Tigers with a separate program that emphasizes gross motor skills and character development. Often these schools use colored stripes on a white belt to denote progression in skills development. The colors of the stripes match the progression through the normal colored belt sequence: orange stripe, yellow stripe, camouflage stripe, etc. When a child is old enough, they will usually move into the regular Tiny Tiger program as an orange belt.

Tonyhansen (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate Songahm content and ATA content

It is my opinion that the content describing the Songahm Taekwondo style (philosophy, rank system, forms, sparring, ec) should be separated from the rest of the article, that focuses on the specifics of ATA organization.

For instance, I am a Songahm student from Europe, thus belonging to WTTU, and as such, neither I or any of my mates and instructors actually wear any ATA patches on the do bohk. When we say our pledge at the begin and end of class, we don't refer to ATA, and between the Korean and National flags is the WTTU symbol. Our relationship with ATA is, AFAIK, strictly on the organizational level, and I only got to know about it through talks with my instructor, as otherwise, I wouldn't know it even existed so far.

It might also be confusing for someone searching for Songahm Taekwondo in wikipedia to not find an article with that title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.196.251 (talk • contribs)

While it is true that the organization treats their three brands separately, they are still the same organization, and many concepts overlap a lot. Thus I would be inclined to merge them back together (and did) with a brief description of the other brands unless it's radically different. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(by the original poster) I can accept that the WTTU and STF are included in the same article as ATA's, although I do think that the separation would benefit the growth of the information available about each of the associations. This however is much more unlikely to happen because of the way the ATA article is right now, too long and too broad (IMHO), so people are less inclined to make it even longer by adding information to the WTTU and STF sub-sections.

As such, also for that matter, I think it would be an improvement to do what I initially suggested, which is to separate the ATA article from the Songahm TKD article, very much in the same way that the football (soccer) article is not inside FIFA's article, and so on. One of the articles is about the sport (which is rich enough to provide an article of it's own), the other is about it's ruling association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.133.162 (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a Songahm Taekwondo article that redirects to it's section in the ATA article. I have done the same with the WTTU and STF articles previously edited by SchuminWeb. The intention is that people are able to link and search about those topics and finding dedicated articles, that happen to redirect to the ATA article. Hopefully this will eventually lead to the separation of each article with the addition of new rich content. Jitieicreiz (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It would brobably make sense to have one article that explains Songham Taekwondo the martial arts style, and another that describes ATA the business entity, along with its affiliates like STF and WTTU 75.182.68.150 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Grand Master Soon Ho Lee Inauguration Date

It says in ATAOnline's page that Grand Master Soon Ho Lee's "inauguration to the esteemed position of Grand Master of Songahm Taekwondo" took place in June 2002, at ATA's World Championships. Yet, in the article, it says that he's been in that position since 2000, when Haeng Ung Lee died. Which of the dates is correct, or are both correct? Jitieicreiz (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ATA Fees

It would be informative to include a section about ATA fees, excluding specific costs. For beginning students these include:

- noncancelleable 3-year contract - required annual ATA membership fee - testing fees (including 1/2 belt and mid-term fees) - required sparring gear - required weapons - required uniforms (White-Yellow: plain; Orange-Blue: silk-screened; Brown-Recommended Red: embroidered; Black: heavy-weight)

Embroidered black belts (with student's naem and rank) require another 6-month contract period

Unfortunately, I cannot find any information about ATA fees online, nor have I ever seen these requirements in writing. They are not included in the contract terms. They are simply a result of my own experience. Therefore, I cannot add this information to the main page, as it would be considered unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekchat (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It cost me $84 to test for my Orange belt and $50 for my son to test for his Yellow belt (as of Nov. 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truid (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Individual schools and clubs set their own program costs and lengths, uniform policies, rank graduation schedules, etc. Within certain boundaries set by ATA (ATA approves uniform designs, but schools determine when types of uniforms are available or required of students of different levels. Because of this variation, its not really feasible to list a "price guide" like you want on the international website. 75.182.68.150 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have noticed that this page has been being "vandalized" by individuals who are critical of the ATA system. I have removed the recent “McDojo” comments. There are valid ways for such topics to be included, after discussion on the talk page. This, however was not done. The labels “McDojo” and “Belt Factory” are typically applied to poorly-run martial arts schools in ALL disciplines. These schools are run only to make a profit and do little or no valuable teaching. This label does not apply to the vast majority of ATA schools, and certainly no more so than in any other discipline of martial arts.

I was in the ATA from 1989-1992, and have a favorable opinion of the organization from that time. However, the term "McDojo" is currently under discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDojo (2nd nomination)), and so the result of that discussion will have a ripple effect on the use of the term throughout Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand Master Richard Reed

i edited the article to reflect upon Richard Reeds newly attained Grand Mastership, but i don't have much information on it 2602:306:374A:2C50:592F:6AD5:AAEC:C37C (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Taekwondo Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707181703/https://secure.ataonline.com/publicrelations/fast-facts.asp to https://secure.ataonline.com/publicrelations/fast-facts.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514052319/http://www.ataonline.com/about/leadership/grandmaster.asp to http://www.ataonline.com/about/leadership/grandmaster.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914081837/http://ataonline.com/songahmvisiontour/blog/inauguration-news/ to http://www.ataonline.com/songahmvisiontour/blog/inauguration-news/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906133737/http://www.ataonline.com:80/songahmvisiontour/indexsongahm.asp to http://ataonline.com/songahmvisiontour/indexsongahm.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Taekwondo Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228121939/http://www.ataonline.com/about/history.asp to http://www.ataonline.com/about/history.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)