" 

 :Support  The reference to online version of Encyclopædia Britannica is invalid, it is an on-line entry of one individual, apparently in an effort to elucidate a chapter in Chinese history, and the article does give a Shato name. As of today, ""Shato"" brings 389,000 responses from Google, vs 79,000 for ""Shatuo"". A Google poll taken 2 May 2008 gave 100,000 vs 6,000 respectively, both polls reflect a fact that in English language, Shato is an accepted spelling. 

 :Another consideration is to facilitate access to the WP article. Naming an article with an oddball name prevents public from accessing an article using a conventional term in the search engine. 

 : But the most important issue is a self-name of the people, which is Shato, and that must have a precedence over any other version expressed in any other language. Shato played a role not only in the Chinese history, but in the histories of a number of peoples in the Middle and Central Asia, and they can't be treated solely as an illustration to the Chinese history. 

 :Lastly, the name form Shato Turks or Shatuo Turks is objectionable, because Shato are not Turks in any measure, they are Türkic-speaking people, but that does not make them Turks, in that form the title of the article is clearly misleading and derisive.   "