romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
Wang and Nyima argue that the Ming emperor sent edicts to Tibet twice in the second year of the Ming dynasty, and demonstrated that he viewed Tibet as a significant region to pacify by urging various Tibetan tribes to submit to the authority of the Ming court. They note that at the same time, the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as ruler of areas of Tibet, went to Nanjing in 1371 to pay tribute and show his allegiance to the Ming court, bringing with him the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court. They also state that since successors of lamas granted the title of "prince" had to travel to the Ming court to renew this title, and since lamas called themselves princes, the Ming court therefore had "full sovereignty over Tibet." They state that the Ming dynasty, by issuing imperial edicts to invite ex-Yuan officials to the court for official positions in the early years of its founding, won submission from ex-Yuan religious and administrative leaders in the Tibetan areas, and thereby incorporated Tibetan areas into the rule of the Ming court. Thus, they conclude, the Ming court won the power to rule Tibetan areas formerly under the rule of the Yuan dynasty.

Q1: Who believed that the Ming court had full sovereignty over Tibet?
A1: Wang and Nyima
Q2: What year did Wang and Nyima believe that the Mongol Prince Punala went to Nanjing?
A2: 1371
Q3: What did the lamas called themselves?
A3: princes
Q4: What edicts did the Ming issue?
A4: imperial edicts
Journalist and author Thomas Laird, in his book The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, writes that Wang and Nyima present the government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China in their Historical Status of China's Tibet, and fail to realize that China was "absorbed into a larger, non-Chinese political unit" during the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which Wang and Nyima paint as a characteristic Chinese dynasty succeeded by the Ming. Laird asserts that the ruling Mongol khans never administered Tibet as part of China and instead ruled them as separate territories, comparing the Mongols with the British who colonized India and New Zealand, yet stating this does not make India part of New Zealand as a consequence. Of later Mongol and Tibetan accounts interpreting the Mongol conquest of Tibet, Laird asserts that "they, like all non-Chinese historical narratives, never portray the Mongol subjugation of Tibet as a Chinese one."

Q1: Who wrote the book The Story of Tibet?
A1: Journalist and author Thomas Laird
Q2: who colonized India and New Zealand?
A2: the British
Q3: Who's viewpoint does Thomas Laird believe Wang and Nyima present?
A3: the government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China
The Columbia Encyclopedia distinguishes between the Yuan dynasty and the other Mongol Empire khanates of Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde. It describes the Yuan dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271." The Encyclopedia Americana describes the Yuan dynasty as "the line of Mongol rulers in China" and adds that the Mongols "proclaimed a Chinese-style Yüan dynasty at Khanbaliq (Beijing)." The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan dynasty "adopted Chinese political and cultural models; ruling from their capitals in Dadu, they assumed the role of Chinese emperors," although Tibetologist Thomas Laird dismissed the Yuan dynasty as a non-Chinese polity and plays down its Chinese characteristics. The Metropolitan Museum of Art also noted that in spite of the gradual assimilation of Yuan monarchs, the Mongol rulers largely ignored the literati and imposed harsh policies discriminating against southern Chinese. In his Kublai Khan: His Life and Times, Rossabi explains that Kublai "created government institutions that either resembled or were the same as the traditional Chinese ones", and he "wished to signal to the Chinese that he intended to adopt the trappings and style of a Chinese ruler".

Q1: How did the The Columbia Encyclopedia describe the Yuan dynasty?
A1: A Mongol dynasty of China
Q2: How did the Encyclopedia Americana describe the Yuan Dynasty?
A2: the line of Mongol rulers in China
Q3: What did Thomas Laird dismiss the Yuan dynasty as?
A3: a non-Chinese polity
Q4: Who wrote the book Khubilai Khan?
A4: Rossabi
Q5: When did the yuan dynasty start and end?
A5: 1271 to 1368
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.

Q1: When did Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan reign?
A1: 1311–1320
Q2: During the Yuan what existed between China and Tibet?
A2: a licensed border market
Q3: Who was granted higher status than the Han Chinese majority?
A3: the Mongols and other ethnicities
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:

Q1: Who abolished the policy council?
A1: the Ming
Q2: What was the Tibetan leader  Choskunskyabs  appointed as?
A2: the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office
Q3: Who governed most areas of Tibet?
A3: Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office
Chen Qingying, Professor of History and Director of the History Studies Institute under the China Tibetology Research Center in Beijing, writes that the Ming court conferred new official positions on ex-Yuan Tibetan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions. Of the county (zong or dzong) leaders of Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, Chen states that when "the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang." The official posts that the Ming court established in Tibet, such as senior and junior commanders, offices of Qianhu (in charge of 1,000 households), and offices of Wanhu (in charge of 10,000 households), were all hereditary positions according to Chen, but he asserts that "the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor," while old imperial mandates had to be returned to the Ming court for renewal.

Q1: Where is the China Tibetology Research Center located?
A1: Beijing
Q2: Who was the Director of the History Studies Institute?
A2: Chen Qingying
Q3: How many households were the offices of Qianhu in charge of?
A3: 1,000 households
Q4: How many households were the offices of Wanhu in charge of?
A4: 10,000 households
According to Tibetologist John Powers, Tibetan sources counter this narrative of titles granted by the Chinese to Tibetans with various titles which the Tibetans gave to the Chinese emperors and their officials. Tribute missions from Tibetan monasteries to the Chinese court brought back not only titles, but large, commercially valuable gifts which could subsequently be sold. The Ming emperors sent invitations to ruling lamas, but the lamas sent subordinates rather than coming themselves, and no Tibetan ruler ever explicitly accepted the role of being a vassal of the Ming.

Q1: What was the name of the Tibetologist?
A1: John Powers
Q2: Who did the Ming emperors send invitations to?
A2: ruling lamas
Q3: When the lamas received an invite from the emperors, who did they send instead?
A3: subordinates
Hans Bielenstein writes that as far back as the Han dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE), the Han Chinese government "maintained the fiction" that the foreign officials administering the various "Dependent States" and oasis city-states of the Western Regions (composed of the Tarim Basin and oasis of Turpan) were true Han representatives due to the Han government's conferral of Chinese seals and seal cords to them.

Q1: What was the western regions composed of?
A1: the Tarim Basin and oasis of Turpan
Q2: Who believed that they were the true Han Western representatives?
A2: foreign officials
Wang and Nyima state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364) by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" (sic properly sde-srid or desi) is seldom mentioned. Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Phagmodrupa Dynasty maintained a Central-local government relation." The Tai Situpa is even supposed to have written in his will: "In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received."

Q1: What title was given by the Yuan court to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen ?
A1: Education Minister
Q2: What Tibetan title was hardly ever mentioned when referring to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen?
A2: Degsi
Q3: What dynasty kept a Central-local government relation with the Yuan imperial court?
A3: Phagmodrupa Dynasty
Q4: What two people claim the title of Education Minister was often seen next to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen's name in Tibetan texts?
A4: Wang and Nyima
Q5: Who wrote in their will that they received loving care from the emperor in the east?
A5: The Tai Situpa
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.

Q1: Who divided Central Tibet into districts?
A1: Changchub Gyaltsen
Q2: Who strongly believed Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to restore the glories of its Imperial age to Tibet?
A2: Van Praag
Q3: What university was Lok-Ham Chan a professor at?
A3: the University of Washington
Q4: What did Lok-Ham Chan claim  Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to remove?
A4: all traces of Mongol suzerainty
According to Chen, the Ming officer of Hezhou (modern day Linxia) informed the Hongwu Emperor that the general situation in Dbus and Gtsang "was under control," and so he suggested to the emperor that he offer the second Phagmodru ruler, Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen, an official title. According to the Records of the Founding Emperor, the Hongwu Emperor issued an edict granting the title "Initiation State Master" to Sagya Gyaincain, while the latter sent envoys to the Ming court to hand over his jade seal of authority along with tribute of colored silk and satin, statues of the Buddha, Buddhist scriptures, and sarira.

Q1: Who did the Hongwu Emperor grant the title Initiation State Master to?
A1: Sagya Gyaincain
Q2: Who suggested to the emperor that an official title be granted to second Phagmodru ruler?
A2: the Ming officer of Hezhou
Q3: Who was the second Phagmodru ruler?
A3: Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen
Q4: Who told the emperor that the situation in Dbus and Gtsang were under control?
A4: the Ming officer of Hezhou
Q5: Where were the envoys sent?
A5: to the Ming court
Dreyfus writes that after the Phagmodrupa lost its centralizing power over Tibet in 1434, several attempts by other families to establish hegemonies failed over the next two centuries until 1642 with the 5th Dalai Lama's effective hegemony over Tibet.

Q1: Who lost their power over Tibet?
A1: the Phagmodrupa
Q2: What year did the Phagmodrupa lose their power over Tibet?
A2: 1434
Q3: What year did the 5th Dalai lama start to dominate over Tibet?
A3: 1642
Q4: What did the other families fail to establish?
A4: hegemonies
The Ming dynasty granted titles to lamas of schools such as the Karmapa Kargyu, but the latter had previously declined Mongol invitations to receive titles. When the Ming Yongle Emperor invited Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), founder of the Gelug school, to come to the Ming court and pay tribute, the latter declined. Wang and Nyima write that this was due to old age and physical weakness, and also because of efforts being made to build three major monasteries. Chen Qingying states that Tsongkhapa wrote a letter to decline the Emperor's invitation, and in this reply, Tsongkhapa wrote:

Q1: The Ming Dynasty granted what titles to lamas of schools?
A1: the Karmapa Kargyu
Q2: Who did the Ming Dynasty decline titles from after receiving invitations?
A2: Mongol
Q3: Who was the founder of the Gelug school?
A3: Je Tsongkhapa
Q4: Who invited Je Tsongkhapa to come pay tribute?
A4: the Ming Yongle Emperor
Q5: Who wrote the letter declining the Emperor's invitation?
A5: Tsongkhapa
A. Tom Grunfeld says that Tsongkhapa claimed ill health in his refusal to appear at the Ming court, while Rossabi adds that Tsongkhapa cited the "length and arduousness of the journey" to China as another reason not to make an appearance. This first request by the Ming was made in 1407, but the Ming court sent another embassy in 1413, this one led by the eunuch Hou Xian (候顯; fl. 1403–1427), which was again refused by Tsongkhapa. Rossabi writes that Tsongkhapa did not want to entirely alienate the Ming court, so he sent his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes to Nanjing in 1414 on his behalf, and upon his arrival in 1415 the Yongle Emperor bestowed upon him the title of "State Teacher"—the same title earlier awarded the Phagmodrupa ruler of Tibet. The Xuande Emperor (r. 1425–1435) even granted this disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes the title of a "King" (王). This title does not appear to have held any practical meaning, or to have given its holder any power, at Tsongkhapa's Ganden Monastery. Wylie notes that this—like the Karma Kargyu—cannot be seen as a reappointment of Mongol Yuan offices, since the Gelug school was created after the fall of the Yuan dynasty.

Q1: When did the Ming first request Tsongkhapa to come to court?
A1: 1407
Q2: When did the Ming court send a second request to Tsongkhapa?
A2: 1413
Q3: Who did Tsongkhapa send in his place to Nanjing?
A3: his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes
Q4: When was Chosrje Shākya Yeshes sent to Nanjing?
A4: 1414
Dawa Norbu argues that modern Chinese Communist historians tend to be in favor of the view that the Ming simply reappointed old Yuan dynasty officials in Tibet and perpetuated their rule of Tibet in this manner. Norbu writes that, although this would have been true for the eastern Tibetan regions of Amdo and Kham's "tribute-cum-trade" relations with the Ming, it was untrue if applied to the western Tibetan regions of Ü-Tsang and Ngari. After the Phagmodrupa Changchub Gyaltsen, these were ruled by "three successive nationalistic regimes," which Norbu writes "Communist historians prefer to ignore."

Q1: Who believed the Ming reappointed old Yuan dynasty officials in Tibet?
A1: Dawa Norbu
Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet," despite the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they left Tibet. Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming dynasty's territory was Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan while "the Ming did not possess Tibet."

Q1: Who did the Ming appoint titles to?
A1: eastern Tibetan princes
Q2: What didn't the Ming send to replace the Mongols when they left Tibet?
A2: an army
Q3: What does Yiu Yung-chin claim the Ming did not possess?
A3: Tibet
Shih-Shan Henry Tsai writes that the Yongle Emperor sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413 to gain the allegiance of various Tibetan princes, while the Yongle Emperor paid a small fortune in return gifts for tributes in order to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states such as Nepal and Tibet. However, Van Praag states that Tibetan rulers upheld their own separate relations with the kingdoms of Nepal and Kashmir, and at times "engaged in armed confrontation with them."

Q1: What was the name of the  eunuch?
A1: Yang Sanbao
Q2: Where did the Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao?
A2: Tibet
Q3: When did Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao into Tibet?
A3: 1413
Q4: Why did Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao into Tibet?
A4: the allegiance of various Tibetan princes
Q5: Why did the emperor pay a small fortune in gifts?
A5: to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states
Even though the Gelug exchanged gifts with and sent missions to the Ming court up until the 1430s, the Gelug was not mentioned in the Mingshi or the Mingshi Lu. On this, historian Li Tieh-tseng says of Tsongkhapa's refusal of Ming invitations to visit the Yongle Emperor's court:

Q1: Who did the Gelug exchange gifts with?
A1: the Ming court
Q2: Until what year frame did the Gelug exchange gifts with the the Ming?
A2: 1430s
Q3: What was the Gelug not mentioned in?
A3: the Mingshi or the Mingshi Lu
Wylie asserts that this type of censorship of the History of Ming distorts the true picture of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, while the Ming court granted titles to various lamas regardless of their sectarian affiliations in an ongoing civil war in Tibet between competing Buddhist factions. Wylie argues that Ming titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.

Q1: Regardless of their sectarian affiliations, who did the Ming grant titles to?
A1: various lamas
Q2: Who was the viceregal Sakya regime overthrown by?
A2: the Phagmodru myriarchy
Helmut Hoffman states that the Ming upheld the facade of rule over Tibet through periodic missions of "tribute emissaries" to the Ming court and by granting nominal titles to ruling lamas, but did not actually interfere in Tibetan governance. Melvyn C. Goldstein writes that the Ming had no real administrative authority over Tibet, as the various titles given to Tibetan leaders did not confer authority as the earlier Mongol Yuan titles had. He asserts that "by conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality." Hugh Edward Richardson writes that the Ming dynasty exercised no authority over the succession of Tibetan ruling families, the Phagmodru (1354–1435), Rinpungpa (1435–1565), and Tsangpa (1565–1642).

Q1: Who believed that the Ming had no real authority over Tibet?
A1: Melvyn C. Goldstein
Q2: What years did the Rinpungpa regime start and end?
A2: 1435–1565
Q3: Who believed that the titles given to Tibetan leaders did not confer authority?
A3: Melvyn C. Goldstein
Q4: What years did the Tsangpa start and end?
A4: 1565–1642
In his usurpation of the throne from the Jianwen Emperor (r. 1398–1402), the Yongle Emperor was aided by the Buddhist monk Yao Guangxiao, and like his father, the Hongwu Emperor, the Yongle Emperor was "well-disposed towards Buddhism", claims Rossabi. On March 10, 1403, the Yongle Emperor invited Deshin Shekpa, 5th Karmapa Lama (1384–1415), to his court, even though the fourth Karmapa had rejected the invitation of the Hongwu Emperor. A Tibetan translation in the 16th century preserves the letter of the Yongle Emperor, which the Association for Asian Studies notes is polite and complimentary towards the Karmapa. The letter of invitation reads,

Q1: What year did the Jianwen Emperor reign start and end?
A1: 1398–1402
Q2: Who aided the Yongle Emperor?
A2: the Buddhist monk Yao Guangxiao
Q3: Who was Yongle Emperor's father?
A3: the Hongwu Emperor
Q4: When did the Yongle Emperor invite Deshin Shekpa to his court?
A4: March 10, 1403
In order to seek out the Karmapa, the Yongle Emperor dispatched his eunuch Hou Xian and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang (d. 1435) to Tibet. Traveling to Lhasa either through Qinghai or via the Silk Road to Khotan, Hou Xian and Zhi Guang did not return to Nanjing until 1407.

Q1: Who did the Yongle Emperor send to Tibet?
A1: Hou Xian and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang
Q2: Why did the Yongle Emperor send Hou Xian and Zhi Guang to Tibet?
A2: to seek out the Karmapa
Q3: When did Hou Xian and Zhi Guang return to Nanjing?
A3: 1407
Q4: Where did Hou Xian and Zhi Guang travel through on their way to the Karmapa?
A4: through Qinghai or via the Silk Road to Khotan
During his travels beginning in 1403, Deshin Shekpa was induced by further exhortations by the Ming court to visit Nanjing by April 10, 1407. Norbu writes that the Yongle Emperor, following the tradition of Mongol emperors and their reverence for the Sakya lamas, showed an enormous amount of deference towards Deshin Shekpa. The Yongle Emperor came out of the palace in Nanjing to greet the Karmapa and did not require him to kowtow like a tributary vassal. According to Karma Thinley, the emperor gave the Karmapa the place of honor at his left, and on a higher throne than his own. Rossabi and others describe a similar arrangement made by Kublai Khan and the Sakya Phagpa lama, writing that Kublai would "sit on a lower platform than the Tibetan cleric" when receiving religious instructions from him.

Q1: When did Deshin Shekpa travels start?
A1: 1403
Q2: Where did the Yongle Emperor greet the Karmapa?
A2: Nanjing
Q3: Who did the Emperor give the place of honor at his left to?
A3: the Karmapa
Q4: Who sat on a lower platform than the Tibetan cleric?
A4: Kublai
Q5: Who showed a great amount of respect to Deshin Shekpa?
A5: the Yongle Emperor