Siam0703/SQuAD-EN-Passage-to-Question huggingface dataset:
Montana's motto, Oro y Plata, Spanish for "Gold and Silver", recognizing the significant role of mining, was first adopted in 1865, when Montana was still a territory. A state seal with a miner's pick and shovel above the motto, surrounded by the mountains and the Great Falls of the Missouri River, was adopted during the first meeting of the territorial legislature in 1864–65. The design was only slightly modified after Montana became a state and adopted it as the Great Seal of the State of Montana, enacted by the legislature in 1893. The state flower, the bitterroot, was adopted in 1895 with the support of a group called the Floral Emblem Association, which formed after Montana's Women's Christian Temperance Union adopted the bitterroot as the organization's state flower. All other symbols were adopted throughout the 20th century, save for Montana's newest symbol, the state butterfly, the mourning cloak, adopted in 2001, and the state lullaby, "Montana Lullaby", adopted in 2007.

Questions:
What is Montana's motto?
What does Montana's motto mean?
When was the motto adopted?
WHen was the state flower adopted?
What is the state flower for Montana?
After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocides. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

Questions:
In 1948, what general assembly resolution established genocide as a prosecutable act?
In which war-era country was the Holocaust immortalized?
Following World War II, whose bid was successful in establishing the worldwide acceptance and the nascent legal definition of genocide?
Which group convened officially for the first time in 1946?
While recognizing genocide, what did the UN General Assembly fail to do in its resolution?
The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

Questions:
Several considerations were involved in meeting the requirement to determine what?
What is the key aspect of the targeted part of the group at the starting point of the inquiry?
The number of people targeted in a genocide should not be solely evaluated by what?
In addition to the numeric size of a targeted group, what other consideration was useful to the ICTY?
In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."

Questions:
The issue of what is raised by judges in Paragraph 13?
What is the basis for suggesting that several factors regarding the activity of the perpetrators be considered?
The extent of what by the perpetrators was considered in an examination of their activity and level of control?
What will always be restricted in terms of a perpetrator's intent to destroy?
While the factor cannot independently indicate if the targeted group is substantial, it can do what?
The Convention came into force as international law on 12 January 1951 after the minimum 20 countries became parties. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty: France and the Republic of China. The Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

Questions:
On which date did the Genocide Convention become effective?
What was the minimum number of countries necessary to form parties?
Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, how many were parties to the treaty?
What member ratified in 1970?
The delay in support by certain powerful members meant the Convention was largely powerless for over how many decades?
Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.

Questions:
What two writers examined the lack of an accepted and singular definition for genocide?
The two writers suggested that academics adjusted what in their different definitions to assist them in interpreting events?
What writer joined Jonassohn in the study of the whole of human history?
With whom was Leo Kuper paired in research that focused on 20th century works?
Two women and what man concentrated on post World War II events?
Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'. The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).

Questions:
In terms of failed states and non-state actors, the possession of weapons of mass destruction was an issue examined by which writer?
In Gallagher's definition of genocide, a source of what is malicious in it implementation of the destruction of a group?
Gallagher's definition upholds the centrality of what?
The centrality of intent broadens what definition, beyond the 1948 one?
In order for a genocide classification to happen, a major part of a group has to be what?
Chopin's mazurkas and waltzes are all in straightforward ternary or episodic form, sometimes with a coda. The mazurkas often show more folk features than many of his other works, sometimes including modal scales and harmonies and the use of drone basses. However, some also show unusual sophistication, for example Op. 63 No. 3, which includes a canon at one beat's distance, a great rarity in music.

Questions:
Chopin's mazurkas contain more of what than his other compositions?
What form are Chopin's mazurkas and waltzes in?
Which of Chopin's works shows more folk aspects?
What type of bass do Chopin's mazurkas exhibit?
What does Chopin's Op. 63 No. 3 have that is rare?
Some modern commentators have argued against exaggerating Chopin's primacy as a "nationalist" or "patriotic" composer. George Golos refers to earlier "nationalist" composers in Central Europe, including Poland's Michał Kleofas Ogiński and Franciszek Lessel, who utilised polonaise and mazurka forms. Barbara Milewski suggests that Chopin's experience of Polish music came more from "urbanised" Warsaw versions than from folk music, and that attempts (by Jachimecki and others) to demonstrate genuine folk music in his works are without basis. Richard Taruskin impugns Schumann's attitude toward Chopin's works as patronizing and comments that Chopin "felt his Polish patriotism deeply and sincerely" but consciously modelled his works on the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field.

Questions:
Who said that Chopin's familiarity with Polish music was more "urbanised"  than true folk music?
George Golos references what two musicians when claiming Chopin's nationalism was overrated?
Who said Chopin's works were modeled after Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field?
The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th century, but did not garrison permanent troops there. At times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays. The Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations after the Mongol-Tibetan alliance initiated in 1578, which affected the foreign policy of the subsequent Qing dynasty (1644–1912) of China in their support for the Dalai Lama of the Gelug school. By the late 16th century, the Mongols were successful armed protectors of the Gelug Dalai Lama, after increasing their presence in the Amdo region. This culminated in Güshi Khan's (1582–1655) conquest of Tibet from 1637–1642 and the establishment of the Ganden Phodrang regime by the 5th Dalai Lama with his help.

Questions:
What did the Tibetans use against Ming forays?
Who were the armed protectors for the Gelug Dalai Lama?
Which regime did Güshi Khan help establish?
When was the Mongol-Tibetan alliance started?
Tibet was once a strong power contemporaneous with Tang China (618–907). Until the Tibetan Empire's collapse in the 9th century, it was the Tang's major rival in dominating Inner Asia. The Yarlung rulers of Tibet also signed various peace treaties with the Tang, culminating in a treaty in 821 that fixed the borders between Tibet and China.

Questions:
In what century did the Tibetan Empire fall?
Who signed multiple peace treaties with the Tang?
What did one of the treaties between the Tang and Tibet help fix?
Who was the Tangs biggest rival?
What year did Tang and Tibet sign a treaty to fix the borders?
In 1207, the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) conquered and subjugated the ethnic Tangut state of the Western Xia (1038–1227). In the same year, he established diplomatic relations with Tibet by sending envoys there. The conquest of the Western Xia alarmed Tibetan rulers, who decided to pay tribute to the Mongols. However, when they ceased to pay tribute after Genghis Khan's death, his successor Ögedei Khan (r. 1229–1241) launched an invasion into Tibet.

Questions:
Which ruler took Western Xia under their control?
Who was Genghis Khan's successor?
What years did Ögedei Khan rule?
Who invaded Tibet?
Kublai Khan did not conquer the Song dynasty in South China until 1279, so Tibet was a component of the early Mongol Empire before it was combined into one of its descendant empires with the whole of China under the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368). Van Praag writes that this conquest "marked the end of independent China," which was then incorporated into the Yuan dynasty that ruled China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, parts of Siberia and Upper Burma. Morris Rossabi, a professor of Asian history at Queens College, City University of New York, writes that "Khubilai wished to be perceived both as the legitimate Khan of Khans of the Mongols and as the Emperor of China. Though he had, by the early 1260s, become closely identified with China, he still, for a time, claimed universal rule", and yet "despite his successes in China and Korea, Khubilai was unable to have himself accepted as the Great Khan". Thus, with such limited acceptance of his position as Great Khan, Kublai Khan increasingly became identified with China and sought support as Emperor of China.

Questions:
When did Kublai Khan conquer the song dynasty?
When did the Yuan dynasty rule?
Which dynasty ruled all of china?
What did Khubilai claim for a while?
Where did Khubilai seek support as Emperor?
In 1358, the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown in a rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364). The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy, and Changchub Gyaltsen and his successors, the Phagmodrupa Dynasty, gained de facto rule over Tibet.

Questions:
What year was the Sakya viceregal regime eradicated?
Who placed the Sakya viceregal regime position of authority?
Who eradicated the Sakya viceregal regime?
Which dynasty became ruler of Tibet?
In 1368, a Han Chinese revolt known as the Red Turban Rebellion toppled the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China. Zhu Yuanzhang then established the Ming dynasty, ruling as the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398). It is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the civil war going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang dynasty. Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer Kham region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.

Questions:
Who created the Ming Dynasty?
Who caused the Yuan dynasty to fall?
Who ruled as the the Hongwu Emperor?
What years did Zhu Yuanzhang rule as the Hongwu Emperor?
Who did the Hongwu Emperor send convoys to?
However, the early Ming government enacted a law, later rescinded, which forbade Han Chinese to learn the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. There is little detailed evidence of Chinese—especially lay Chinese—studying Tibetan Buddhism until the Republican era (1912–1949). Despite these missions on behalf of the Hongwu Emperor, Morris Rossabi writes that the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424) "was the first Ming ruler actively to seek an extension of relations with Tibet."

Questions:
Who created a law that did not allow Han Chinese to learn the beliefs of Tibetan Buddhism?
What years did the Yongle Emperor reign?
Who worked towards obtaining a extension of relations with Tibet?
According to the official Twenty-Four Histories, the History of Ming compiled in 1739 by the subsequent Qing dynasty (1644–1912), the Ming dynasty established the "É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (Chinese: 俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet and installed the "Ü-Tsang Itinerant High Commandery" and "Amdo-Kham Itinerant High Commandery" to administer Kham. The Mingshi states that administrative offices were set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery, three Pacification Commissioner's Offices, six Expedition Commissioner's Offices, four Wanhu offices (myriarchies, in command of 10,000 households each) and seventeen Qianhu offices (chiliarchies, each in command of 1,000 households).

Questions:
What years did the Qing dynasty rule?
what year was the history of Ming produced?
What did the Ming dynasty create?
How many Qianhu offices were there?
where was the É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office established?
Historians disagree on what the relationship was between the Ming court and Tibet and whether or not Ming China had sovereignty over Tibet. Van Praag writes that Chinese court historians viewed Tibet as an independent foreign tributary and had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship. The historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa supports van Praag's position. However, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Shakabpa are "fallacies".

Questions:
Who supported van Praag's beliefs?
Who did not agree with van Praag and Shakabpa?
Nevertheless, the ethno-geographic caste hierarchy favoring the Mongols and other ethnicities were accorded higher status than the Han Chinese majority. Although Han Chinese who were recruited as advisers were often actually more influential than high officials, their status was not as well defined. Kublai also abolished the imperial examinations of China's civil service legacy, which was not reinstated until Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan's reign (1311–1320). Rossabi writes that Kublai recognized that in order to rule China, "he had to employ Chinese advisors and officials, yet he could not rely totally on Chinese advisers because he had to maintain a delicate balancing act between ruling the sedentary civilization of China and preserving the cultural identity and values of the Mongols." And "in governing China, he was concerned with the interests of his Chinese subjects, but also with exploiting the resources of the empire for his own aggrandizement. His motivations and objectives alternated from one to the other throughout his reign," according to Rossabi. Van Praag writes in The Status of Tibet that the Tibetans and Mongols, on the other hand, upheld a dual system of rule and an interdependent relationship that legitimated the succession of Mongol khans as universal Buddhist rulers, or chakravartin. Van Praag writes that "Tibet remained a unique part of the Empire and was never fully integrated into it," citing examples such as a licensed border market that existed between China and Tibet during the Yuan.

Questions:
When did Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan reign?
During the Yuan what existed between China and Tibet?
Who was granted higher status than the Han Chinese majority?
The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is that the Ming implemented a policy of managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting titles and setting up administrative organs over Tibet. The State Council Information Office of the People's Republic states that the Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet. It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming dynasty. For example, an edict of the Hongwu Emperor in 1373 appointed the Tibetan leader Choskunskyabs as the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office, stating:

Questions:
Who abolished the policy council?
What was the Tibetan leader  Choskunskyabs  appointed as?
Who governed most areas of Tibet?
However, Lok-Ham Chan, a professor of history at the University of Washington, writes that Changchub Gyaltsen's aims were to recreate the old Tibetan Kingdom that existed during the Chinese Tang dynasty, to build "nationalist sentiment" amongst Tibetans, and to "remove all traces of Mongol suzerainty." Georges Dreyfus, a professor of religion at Williams College, writes that it was Changchub Gyaltsen who adopted the old administrative system of Songtsän Gampo (c. 605–649)—the first leader of the Tibetan Empire to establish Tibet as a strong power—by reinstating its legal code of punishments and administrative units. For example, instead of the 13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, Changchub Gyaltsen divided Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon) who had to conform to old rituals and wear clothing styles of old Imperial Tibet. Van Praag asserts that Changchub Gyaltsen's ambitions were to "restore to Tibet the glories of its Imperial Age" by reinstating secular administration, promoting "national culture and traditions," and installing a law code that survived into the 20th century.

Questions:
Who divided Central Tibet into districts?
Who strongly believed Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to restore the glories of its Imperial age to Tibet?
What university was Lok-Ham Chan a professor at?
What did Lok-Ham Chan claim  Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to remove?
Tibetan sources say Deshin Shekpa also persuaded the Yongle Emperor not to impose his military might on Tibet as the Mongols had previously done. Thinley writes that before the Karmapa returned to Tibet, the Yongle Emperor began planning to send a military force into Tibet to forcibly give the Karmapa authority over all the Tibetan Buddhist schools but Deshin Shekpa dissuaded him. However, Hok-Lam Chan states that "there is little evidence that this was ever the emperor's intention" and that evidence indicates that Deshin Skekpa was invited strictly for religious purposes.

Questions:
Who imposed on the military might on Tibet in the past?
Hok-Lam Chan states that Deshin Skekpa was only invited for what purpose?
What was said to be the  Yongle Emperor plans?
Why was the Yongle Emperor said to have been planning to send military forces into Tibet?
Who convinced the Yongle emperor not to send military forces into Tibet?
The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC preserves an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor (r. 1435–1449) addressed to the Karmapa in 1445, written after the latter's agent had brought holy relics to the Ming court. Zhengtong had the following message delivered to the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma, the Karmapa:

Questions:
What years did the Zhengtong Emperor reign?
Who maintains an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor?
Who was the edict addressed to?
Who had a message delivered to them by Zhengtong?
When was the edict written?
Discussions of strategy in the mid Ming dynasty focused primarily on recovery of the Ordos region, which the Mongols used as a rallying base to stage raids into Ming China. Norbu states that the Ming dynasty, preoccupied with the Mongol threat to the north, could not spare additional armed forces to enforce or back up their claim of sovereignty over Tibet; instead, they relied on "Confucian instruments of tribute relations" of heaping unlimited number of titles and gifts on Tibetan lamas through acts of diplomacy. Sperling states that the delicate relationship between the Ming and Tibet was "the last time a united China had to deal with an independent Tibet," that there was a potential for armed conflict at their borders, and that the ultimate goal of Ming foreign policy with Tibet was not subjugation but "avoidance of any kind of Tibetan threat." P. Christiaan Klieger argues that the Ming court's patronage of high Tibetan lamas "was designed to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes."

Questions:
What did the mid Ming dynasty discussion focus mainly on?
Who used the the Ordos region as a place to stage raids?
Where were the Mongols trying to raise?
Why did P. Christiaan Klieger believe that the Ming court supported high Tibetan lamas?