As I stated, one dispute (with sources on the entry) when there are 517 other sources in the article is not a reason to put the unjustified template on this article. As I recall, we have multiple sources for Ataturk, and I just found another one written by a Turkish Freemason and published in Freemasonry Today here, which we might already have or might not. 

The real problem here is that, according to most easily accessible Turkish sources floating around on the Internet, apparently Ataturk can't be a Freemason because if he was, he would also have to be a Jew and also homosexual, depending on what YouTube video you watch.  So the issue actually has more to do with somebody cobbling together disparate pieces of questionable information and someone else disagreeing with it than it does anything else.

Qwl, you also have a history of tendentious editing on Turkish subjects, and the sheer amount of your edits that have been reverted for issues, media files that have been deleted for lack of licensing, and the ArbCom case which was declined because you couldn't be bothered to fill out the form tells me that you are more interested in arguing your point in any given area than building an encyclopedia based on community policies.  Wikipedia is not a battleground, so take it elsewhere.