Unlike the Nobel laureates in literature and sciences, the peace prize is not awarded by the Swedish Academy (in Stockholm). It's awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee (in Oslo).

> Unlike the Nobel laureates in literature and sciences the peace prize is not awarded by the Swedish Academy (in Stockholm).

Note that the Swedish Academy only awards the Literature prize. Nobels in Physics and Chemistry are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Karolinska Institutet awards the Nobel in Physiology or Medicine. Thus, only the Literature prize is impacted by this.

> the Karolinska Institutet

The 't' at the end of 'Institutet' is the article, so you can write 'Karolinska Institutet' or 'the Karolinska Institute'.

</pedant>

Its name is "Karolinska Institutet", so you can't reasonably translate it to "the Karolinska Institute", because at that point the first part if its name is just an untranslated adjective. And if you arrive at "the Carolean Institute" people no longer understand what you're referring to.

Sorry for furthering the pedantry.

«sometimes known as the (Royal) Caroline Institute in English[3][4]»[0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinska_Institute

That's not accurate: the Swedish Academy only selects the Literature prize. The medicine prize is selected by the Karolinska Institute and the physics/chemistry/economics prizes are selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (which is an entirely different organization from "the Swedish Academy").

Technically, non of these organizations "award" the prizes, the prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation and the Swedish National Bank, the Riksbank (only the economics prize). They just select the winners.

I know. The notion that Republicans would propose Trump as recipient for the Literature Nobel Prize was the joke.

I do think a lot of those tweets are a work of fiction, quite original and influential. And unlike a lot of Nobel worthy literature they are also quite entertaining and reach a wide audience.

So it's not entirely impossible that he might one day receive it ;-)

His best work is already collected in an appropriate format:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Beautiful_Poetry_...

Wasn't that the peace prize, though?

In an alternate reality, Trump gets the Nobel prize in literature for his tweets.

EDIT: Thinking about it, that would actually be a really classy and fnord-y move.

He called a dictator short and fat and it lead to total denuclearization, likely peace and unification between a region in conflict for over 60 years.

Careful — nothing has yet been done towards denuclearization except a non-committing promise by Kim to halt further tests for now. The regime has made similar promises several times over the past 25 years.

Yet Kim Dae Jung won in 2000 because of similar promises. And Obama won for absolutely nothing. So there is definitely precedent for prizes awarded with minimal lasting results. Knowing the Nobel Committee though, Kim Jung Un is more likely to win.

I wish the Norwegians would adopt a strict rule against awarding any politicians before they're retired from public service. Obama's prize was pointless and actively damaged the perception of the Peace Prize in the United States.

There are so many worthy recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize that are virtually unknown outside their specific non-profit niches — focus on those instead, and use the prize to highlight their work.

Well NK has committed to denuclearization[1], while the US also talk about denuclearization[2].

In general, that is what makes half of foreign policy reporting semi-useless, newspapers rarely report in which sense diplomats use the words. (Compare "fighting terrorist" as claimed by everybody, in general terrorist is just defined by threatening the interests of the speaker.)

[1] Likely meaning a mutual, synchronous and long term reduction of nuclear weapons towards a global zero goal. (Like the stated US nuclear policy of the Obama administration.)

[2] Meaning a prompt and unilateral abolishment of the NK nuclear program, as in Libya.

They didn't have nukes or ICBM's before, so their hand is much stronger.

> My good friends, for the second time in our history, an American President has returned from Korea bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

Its too good to be true so it probably is.

I kind of suspect the Korean heads of state decided to make peace before Trump had a chance to mess it up.

Still, judged by the outcome, it's kind of impressive. ;-)

World leaders have learned that they need to stroke Trump's ego in public by now, but the peace talks in Korea is probably more due to Xi Jinping than Trump. The Chinese just chose to not do it over Twitter. Remember that Kim Jong Un took a train to Beijing, yet no gloating tweets have been made about how successful the meeting was. The results speak for themselves.

Why would China want Korea unified? I can't imagine China wants that long NK border holding SK/US agents or tech.

> He called a dictator short and fat

He first called him Rocket Man, which was an ingenious way of telling him "OK, you have achieved what you wanted" and praising him in a way. He pulled Kim into the eye of the public in a non-humiliating way (the "short and fat" was a response to Kim calling him senile first).

I continue to think it's silly when people assume Trump just tweets his thoughts directly with no regard for results. That might have happened in the past during his campaign, but multiple people have handled that account. I can see no way that the people working high-level jobs in the White House would ever continue to do that work without some idea of and input into his thought processes. It's too important, and the people there are too credentialed. I'm inclined to believe that when he writes a tweet that people can't seem to interpret, it's because it's aimed at achieving a specific result with specific people.

Why not both? he has the bestest words and he wrote multiple books.

Comments like these are why I'm glad there's a "no politics" rule.

There's isn't, though.

Clearly, because there's an unabashed, irrelevant circlejerk thread of Trump-bashing on a post about the Literature Nobel prize.

"The Art of the Deal" is great, but probably not that great.

"The Art of the Deal" was written by Tony Schwartz. He's said that getting Trump to sit down for interviews for more than five minutes was practically impossible [1].

It's well known that Trump doesn't enjoy reading. It seems unlikely that Trump has read "The Art of the Deal" even though he's credited as a co-author on the cover.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-...