" 

  
 What's the problem otherwise??? 
 Tsar of Western Bulgaria and Macedonia is WRONG AND ANTIQUATED. I found a dozen encyclopedias from the 1930s, 40s and 1950s which said ""Samuil was tsar of Western Bulgaria"" or ""Samuil was Tsar of Western Bulgaria or Macedonia"" and then they launched the fantastic theory of Marin Drinov that the boyar Shishman who was from Turnovo led a breakaway revolt in Macedonia and western Bulgaria in the 960s. Some of those encyclopedias, esp. the older ones, still claimed that the Macedonian Slavs are Bulgarians (""the bulk of all independent authorities agree that the Macedonian Slavs are Bulgarians"" or something like it). Modern scholarship does not take seriously the theory of Drinov - nor its disproval by Atansievic or anyone else - it does not talk at all about Western Bulgaria and it certainly does not talk about Western Bulgaria or Macedonia - nor does it talk about the Macedonian Slavs as of ""Bulgarians"". I can clearly see that you are ready to do anything just to include the name ""Macedonia"" in the leading sentence of the article and I understand why you want to do this. But that's just raving nationalism and nothing more. I am not trying to include the statement that ""Macedonian Slavs, also called western Bulgars or simply Bulgarians"" in the leading sentence of Macedonian Slavs although I can quote 100 older sources (and several modern ones) confirming that so it really puzzles me why you want to do that in this article...???  "