Fine that we all agree on that particular choice (BTW, it was the first time they had a female majority in the electing committee).

But I see in some of the posts a lack of knowledge (or acknowledgement) what for the peace prize can be given according to Nobel's legacy. It can easily be given for one particular effort in one particular crisis, completely disregarding the track record of that person in other fields.

Like a physics prize can be given for one great finding to a person who has erred in nearly all other attempts to contribute to science and who is not at all a nice person.

The idea is often (there are notable exceptions in the past) not to judge whether this particular person/institution is a good choice for the peace prize, but whether one particular action of one person makes her a good choice for the prize.

The original idea fo Nobel was that the prize should be given for one particular deed in one particular year (in whatever field). The Nobel committees in the last decades have sometimes decided to give the prize for something like 'the life work'. That's not a bad idea, in my eyes, but several of the people mentioned as unworthy have been very fine choices according to the rules.

But then, I'm not a wholist looking at the whole person when judging one particular contribution.

Wolfgang