In this task, you're given passages that contain mentions of names of people, places, or things. Some of these mentions refer to the same person, place, or thing. Your job is to write questions that evaluate one's understanding of such references. Good questions are expected to link pronouns (she, her, him, his, their, etc.) or other mentions to people, places, or things to which they may refer. Do not ask questions that can be answered correctly without understanding the paragraph or having multiple answers. Avoid questions that do not link phrases referring to the same entity. For each of your questions, the answer should be one or more phrases in the paragraph, and it should be unambiguous.

[EX Q]: Passage: In 1565, the powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, Karma Tseten who styled himself as the Tsangpa, "the one of Tsang", and established his base of power at Shigatse. The second successor of this first Tsang king, Karma Phuntsok Namgyal, took control of the whole of Central Tibet (Ü-Tsang), reigning from 1611–1621. Despite this, the leaders of Lhasa still claimed their allegiance to the Phagmodru as well as the Gelug, while the Ü-Tsang king allied with the Karmapa. Tensions rose between the nationalistic Ü-Tsang ruler and the Mongols who safeguarded their Mongol Dalai Lama in Lhasa. The fourth Dalai Lama refused to give an audience to the Ü-Tsang king, which sparked a conflict as the latter began assaulting Gelug monasteries. Chen writes of the speculation over the fourth Dalai Lama's mysterious death and the plot of the Ü-Tsang king to have him murdered for "cursing" him with illness, although Chen writes that the murder was most likely the result of a feudal power struggle. In 1618, only two years after Yonten Gyatso died, the Gelug and the Karma Kargyu went to war, the Karma Kargyu supported by the secular Ü-Tsang king. The Ü-Tsang ruler had a large number of Gelugpa lamas killed, occupied their monasteries at Drepung and Sera, and outlawed any attempts to find another Dalai Lama. In 1621, the Ü-Tsang king died and was succeeded by his young son Karma Tenkyong, an event which stymied the war effort as the latter accepted the six-year-old Lozang Gyatso as the new Dalai Lama. Despite the new Dalai Lama's diplomatic efforts to maintain friendly relations with the new Ü-Tsang ruler, Sonam Rapten (1595–1657), the Dalai Lama's chief steward and treasurer at Drepung, made efforts to overthrow the Ü-Tsang king, which led to another conflict. In 1633, the Gelugpas and several thousand Mongol adherents defeated the Ü-Tsang king's troops near Lhasa before a peaceful negotiation was settled. Goldstein writes that in this the "Mongols were again playing a significant role in Tibetan affairs, this time as the military arm of the Dalai Lama.".
[EX A]: Who began assaulting Gelug monasteries?

[EX Q]: Passage: The siege was captured by Pathé News cameras—one of their earliest stories and the first siege to be captured on film—and it included footage of Churchill in attendance. When the newsreels were screened in cinemas, Churchill was booed with shouts of "shoot him" from audiences. His presence was controversial to many and the Leader of the Opposition, Arthur Balfour, remarked, "He [Churchill] was, I understand, in military phrase, in what is known as the zone of fire—he and a photographer were both risking valuable lives. I understand what the photographer was doing, but what was the right hon. Gentleman doing? That I neither understood at the time, nor do I understand now." Jenkins suggests that he went simply because "he could not resist going to see the fun himself".An inquest was held in January into the deaths at Houndsditch and Sidney Street. The jury took fifteen minutes to reach the conclusion that the two bodies located were those of Svaars and Sokoloff, and that Tucker, Bentley and Choate had been murdered by Gardstein and others in the course of the burglary attempt. Rosen was arrested on 2 February at work in Well Street, Hackney, and Hoffman was taken into custody on 15 February. The committal proceedings spread from December 1910—with Milstein and Trassjonsky appearing—to March 1911, and included Hoffman from 15 February. The proceedings consisted of 24 individual hearings. In February Milstein was discharged on the basis that there was insufficient evidence against her; Hoffman, Trassjonsky and Federoff were released in March on the same basis.The case against the four remaining arrested gang members was heard at the Old Bailey by Mr Justice Grantham in May. Dubof and Peters were accused of Tucker's murder, Dubof, Peters, Rosen and Vassilleva were charged with "feloniously harbouring a felon guilty of murder", and for "conspiring and agreeing together and with others unknown to break and enter the shop of Henry Samuel Harris with intent to steal his goods." The case lasted for eleven days; there were problems with the proceedings because of the language difficulties and the chaotic personal lives of the accused. The case resulted in acquittals for all except Vassilleva, who was convicted of conspiracy in the burglary. She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment; her conviction was later overturned on appeal.After the high levels of criticism aimed at the Aliens Act, Churchill decided to strengthen the legislation, and proposed the Aliens (Prevention of Crime) Bill under the Ten Minute Rule. The MP Josiah C Wedgwood objected, and wrote to Churchill to ask him not to introduce the hard-line measures "You know as well as I do that human life does not matter a rap in comparison with the death of ideas and the betrayal of English traditions." The bill did not become law.
[EX A]: Which of the people arrested was released first?

[EX Q]: Passage: The NSWCA appealed to Lord Harris, and in reply he said he did not blame them or the cricketers of Sydney in any way, but said that "it [the riot] was an occurrence it was impossible he could forget".
On 11 February, one day after the conclusion of the match and three days after the riot, Harris wrote a letter to one of his friends about the disturbance. It was clear that he intended the letter to be printed in the press, and it appeared in full in The Daily Telegraph on 1 April, among other London newspapers, reigniting the furore. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack considered the incident of such significance that it reprinted the whole correspondence. The letter gives a detailed contemporary account of what Lord Harris thought about the riot.Lord Harris referred to the crowd as a "howling mob" and said "I have seen no reason as yet to change my opinion of Coulthard's qualities, or to regret his engagement, in which opinion I am joined by the whole team". He further added that "Beyond slyly kicking me once or twice the mob behaved very well, their one cry being, 'Change your umpire'. And now for the cause of this disturbance, not unexpected, I may say, by us, for we have heard accounts of former matches played by English teams." Harris further accused a New South Wales parliamentarian of assisting the gamblers in the inciting the unrest, although he did not name the accusee. He said
I blame the NSW Eleven for not objecting to Coulthard before the match began, if they had reason to suppose him incompetent to fulfil his duties. I blame the members of the association (many, of course, must be excepted) for their discourtesy and uncricket like behaviour to their guests; and I blame the committee and others of the association for ever permitting betting, but this last does not, of course, apply to our match only. I am bound to say they did all in their power to quell the disturbance. I don't think anything would have happened if A. Bannerman had been run out instead of Murdoch, but the latter, besides being a great favourite, deservedly I think, was the popular idol of the moment through having carried his bat out in the first innings.
He further accused the Australian public of being bad losers, claiming that they were sparing in their applause upon his team's victory, and were unable to appreciate skills shown by an opposing team. He summed up his feelings
To conclude, I cannot describe to you the horror we felt that such an insult should have been passed on us, and that the game we love so well, and wish to see honoured, supported, and played in an honest and manly way everywhere, should receive such desecration. I can use no milder word.
[EX A]:
What is the full name of the person who wrote to his friend about the disturbance?