Each Year's Most Significant Death.

[honez 79]

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many would probably argue his death is more significant than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy.

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many in the USA would probably argue his death is more significant in their US-centric world-view than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential US politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy in the USA. But they'd be morons, because, like him or not, Michael Jackson was truly world-famous.

[Phantom 2,533]

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many would probably argue his death is more significant than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy.

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many in the USA would probably argue his death is more significant in their US-centric world-view than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential US politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy in the USA. But they'd be morons, because, like him or not, Michael Jackson was truly world-famous.

 

Ted Kennedy will also be known as the only Kennedy brother who didn't screw Marilyn Monroe and allegedly Jackie Kennedy

[CarolAnn 926]

I think it's only July so it's too early for me to worry about this s'hit.

[themaninblack 2,112]

If Thatcher pops it, that would put the cat among the pidgeons on this particular subject...

[Terminator 13]

I'd reckon Obama's assassination would eclipse all others this year.

 

Given all the rednecks (and Right-Wing Republicans creating their own "fatwa") in the USA, he, surely, would be a serious candidate.

[BCAlum2000 42]

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many would probably argue his death is more significant than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy.

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many in the USA would probably argue his death is more significant in their US-centric world-view than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential US politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy in the USA. But they'd be morons, because, like him or not, Michael Jackson was truly world-famous.

 

Ahhh...you have a very good point here.

 

and for the record, I think MJ's death is much more significant than Ted Kennedy (if Ted were to pass away this year). MJ is a beloved worldwide icon; Ted Kennedy is respected amongst a limited audience of elite, highly educated Americans.

 

Now here's another name to consider: Margaret Thatcher. I'm sure that if she were to die this year, you'd be very hard pressed not to consider her at least a contender for most significant death of 2009.

[honez 79]

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many would probably argue his death is more significant than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy.

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many in the USA would probably argue his death is more significant in their US-centric world-view than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential US politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy in the USA. But they'd be morons, because, like him or not, Michael Jackson was truly world-famous.

 

Ahhh...you have a very good point here.

 

and for the record, I think MJ's death is much more significant than Ted Kennedy (if Ted were to pass away this year). MJ is a beloved worldwide icon; Ted Kennedy is respected amongst a limited audience of elite, highly educated Americans.

 

Now here's another name to consider: Margaret Thatcher. I'm sure that if she were to die this year, you'd be very hard pressed not to consider her at least a contender for most significant death of 2009.

...and, no doubt, the most celebrated. I know I'll be up for a beer when she expires.

[Phantom 2,533]

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many would probably argue his death is more significant than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy.

if Ted Kennedy dies this year, many in the USA would probably argue his death is more significant in their US-centric world-view than MJ's simply b/c he's been such a prominent and influential US politician for decades who shaped the law and public policy in the USA. But they'd be morons, because, like him or not, Michael Jackson was truly world-famous.

 

Ahhh...you have a very good point here.

 

and for the record, I think MJ's death is much more significant than Ted Kennedy (if Ted were to pass away this year). MJ is a beloved worldwide icon; Ted Kennedy is respected amongst a limited audience of elite, highly educated Americans.

 

Now here's another name to consider: Margaret Thatcher. I'm sure that if she were to die this year, you'd be very hard pressed not to consider her at least a contender for most significant death of 2009.

...and, no doubt, the most celebrated. I know I'll be up for a beer when she expires.

 

It'll be a party all night at the Bread & Roses in Clapham that's for sure. That's where I celebrated the end of the Tory government back in 1997.

That night on the bill was T.V. Smith of The Adverts, Attila The Stockbroker and John Otway.

[chicago103 41]

Let me state the obvious.

 

2009 Michael Jackson

 

One of the top three deaths of the entire decade I would say behind Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan.

 

 

Depends on your view on 'significant' - JP2 and RR were expected, so I wouldn'd class them as significant deaths. MJ's certainly wasn't expected, and I wold probably class that one as significant.

 

Three Four significants in one post. Howzat Mono?

 

Well my definition of "significant" in this context of deaths is multi-faceted. The amount of influence one had on the world in one's life is one factor, another factor is the manner of death and how shocking it is, another factor is does the death cause a change of leadership/influence in whatever sphere of influence they had. I don't have a formula down pat to "measure" the significance of deaths but I just go with my gut and try to be as diverse as possible taking into account all political, religious, celebrity, scientific, etc. deaths in a given year/decade.

 

In that sense I would say one can make a strong case that Michael Jackson's death was more significant than Ronald Reagan's but not more than Pope John Paul II in this decade. Ronald Reagan was a person who had a tremendous impact on the world, particularly in the 1980's, he was in a sense and icon of the 1980's just like Michael Jackson just political instead of music/celebrity. However Reagan was a former President, had alzhiemer's disease for a decade, was 93 years old and expected to die for years, thus the news was plastered with coverage for about a week after his death until his funeral but it was all about his legacy, there was no shock nor an ongoing discussion about how he died or what will happen to his "empire" like Michal Jackson, Reagan was a former President and thus his death did not cause a change of leadership.

 

Pope John Paul II was in ill health for many years and while his death was not a shock to really anyone his death resulted in a change of leadership in the largest religious denomination in the world. He had a tremendous impact like Reagan if not more so on world events and from his death until the election of Benedict XVI as his replacement the news was covering JPII, his legacy and the Catholic church. I read that Michael Jackson's funeral had one billion viewers worldwide, that is huge but I think I remember that it was even a higher figure for JPII's funeral, not to mention it has been quoted in numerous sources that JPII's funeral was the biggest in world history, with a million plus people clamored in central Rome. His funeral was also one of the largest gathering of world leaders, certainly for a funeral, many countries around the world had days of mourning for his death.

 

So I would say that for the 2000's John Paul II's death was the most significant followed by Michael Jackson and then Ronald Reagan.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Let me state the obvious.

 

2009 Michael Jackson

 

One of the top three deaths of the entire decade I would say behind Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan.

 

 

Depends on your view on 'significant' - JP2 and RR were expected, so I wouldn'd class them as significant deaths. MJ's certainly wasn't expected, and I wold probably class that one as significant.

 

Three Four significants in one post. Howzat Mono?

 

Well my definition of "significant" in this context of deaths is multi-faceted. The amount of influence one had on the world in one's life is one factor, another factor is the manner of death and how shocking it is, another factor is does the death cause a change of leadership/influence in whatever sphere of influence they had. I don't have a formula down pat to "measure" the significance of deaths but I just go with my gut and try to be as diverse as possible taking into account all political, religious, celebrity, scientific, etc. deaths in a given year/decade.

 

In that sense I would say one can make a strong case that Michael Jackson's death was more significant than Ronald Reagan's but not more than Pope John Paul II in this decade. Ronald Reagan was a person who had a tremendous impact on the world, particularly in the 1980's, he was in a sense and icon of the 1980's just like Michael Jackson just political instead of music/celebrity. However Reagan was a former President, had alzhiemer's disease for a decade, was 93 years old and expected to die for years, thus the news was plastered with coverage for about a week after his death until his funeral but it was all about his legacy, there was no shock nor an ongoing discussion about how he died or what will happen to his "empire" like Michal Jackson, Reagan was a former President and thus his death did not cause a change of leadership.

 

Pope John Paul II was in ill health for many years and while his death was not a shock to really anyone his death resulted in a change of leadership in the largest religious denomination in the world. He had a tremendous impact like Reagan if not more so on world events and from his death until the election of Benedict XVI as his replacement the news was covering JPII, his legacy and the Catholic church. I read that Michael Jackson's funeral had one billion viewers worldwide, that is huge but I think I remember that it was even a higher figure for JPII's funeral, not to mention it has been quoted in numerous sources that JPII's funeral was the biggest in world history, with a million plus people clamored in central Rome. His funeral was also one of the largest gathering of world leaders, certainly for a funeral, many countries around the world had days of mourning for his death.

 

So I would say that for the 2000's John Paul II's death was the most significant followed by Michael Jackson and then Ronald Reagan.

 

What is the actual significance of Regan's death? Indeed I would ask this about Thatcher too. Yes, they are prominent figures in recent politcal history (although Regan's impact is somewhat overstated, Dubya will be talked about in future more often than Regan simply for the Iraq War). But their actual 'deaths' have no immediate significance in the world, I would argue. Regan had long since left office when he died, and Thatcher would have to. It's almost twenty years since she resigned from office. When she did, it was seismic. I remember hearing the news well. It was genuinely 'where I was and what I was doing' moment (break time in school as it happens). But when she dies, yes it'll be big news, yes there'll be all sorts of articles and TV programmes about her merits from those who worshipped her and those who despised her. But we had that (albeit without the hindsight) when she resigned, plus the added drama of her successor. That was significant.

 

Jackson died when he was on the verge of a spectacular comeback. The Pope was in office when he died. John Lennon was shot just as he was returning (and goodness knows what fascinating twists and turns in his career we could have had, had he lived). Charles de Gaulle had only just left office in 1970 and still would have left a shadow over French politics in the Seventies. They all still had more to give. But Regan and Thatcher are already part of history and their actual deaths are incidental in the wide scheme of things...

[Vinegar Tits 606]

In that sense I would say one can make a strong case that Michael Jackson's death was more significant than Ronald Reagan's but not more than Pope John Paul II in this decade.

 

Pope John Paul II was in ill health for many years and while his death was not a shock to really anyone his death resulted in a change of leadership in the largest religious denomination in the world.

 

So I would say that for the 2000's John Paul II's death was the most significant followed by Michael Jackson and then Ronald Reagan.

Like your argument, but a Pope isn't a one-off. Rather like the death of a monarch - unless there is a serious regime change (ie - scrapping the monarchy) then it is a case of "The Pope is dead - Long live the Pope" as there's always going to be a new one chosen in a few days. Plus in the case of JPII he'd been probably the most watched soon-to-be-dead-person since the Queen Mum (Gawd bless 'er) and certainly in his final few days, and for a couple of days around Nov/Dec the year previously whe he was ill, everyone was waiting for him to die. At the time I was working for a news gathering agency and I usually answered the phone with "is he dead yet then?" such was the anticipation.

 

Michael Jackson was unique, a one-off. He is irreplacable; and for all the rumours about his health and the feeling that he wold never reach old age, his death still came as a shock and out of the blue. There hadn't been a death like this since Saint Diana. Therefore most significant death of 2009? Certainly. I'd argue it's the second most significant event of this decade in fact.

[Applecool Downunder 10]

In that sense I would say one can make a strong case that Michael Jackson's death was more significant than Ronald Reagan's but not more than Pope John Paul II in this decade.

 

Pope John Paul II was in ill health for many years and while his death was not a shock to really anyone his death resulted in a change of leadership in the largest religious denomination in the world.

 

So I would say that for the 2000's John Paul II's death was the most significant followed by Michael Jackson and then Ronald Reagan.

Like your argument, but a Pope isn't a one-off. Rather like the death of a monarch - unless there is a serious regime change (ie - scrapping the monarchy) then it is a case of "The Pope is dead - Long live the Pope" as there's always going to be a new one chosen in a few days. Plus in the case of JPII he'd been probably the most watched soon-to-be-dead-person since the Queen Mum (Gawd bless 'er) and certainly in his final few days, and for a couple of days around Nov/Dec the year previously whe he was ill, everyone was waiting for him to die. At the time I was working for a news gathering agency and I usually answered the phone with "is he dead yet then?" such was the anticipation.

 

Michael Jackson was unique, a one-off. He is irreplacable; and for all the rumours about his health and the feeling that he wold never reach old age, his death still came as a shock and out of the blue. There hadn't been a death like this since Saint Diana. Therefore most significant death of 2009? Certainly. I'd argue it's the second most significant event of this decade in fact.

 

Michael who?

[BCAlum2000 42]

In that sense I would say one can make a strong case that Michael Jackson's death was more significant than Ronald Reagan's but not more than Pope John Paul II in this decade.

 

Pope John Paul II was in ill health for many years and while his death was not a shock to really anyone his death resulted in a change of leadership in the largest religious denomination in the world.

 

So I would say that for the 2000's John Paul II's death was the most significant followed by Michael Jackson and then Ronald Reagan.

Like your argument, but a Pope isn't a one-off. Rather like the death of a monarch - unless there is a serious regime change (ie - scrapping the monarchy) then it is a case of "The Pope is dead - Long live the Pope" as there's always going to be a new one chosen in a few days. Plus in the case of JPII he'd been probably the most watched soon-to-be-dead-person since the Queen Mum (Gawd bless 'er) and certainly in his final few days, and for a couple of days around Nov/Dec the year previously whe he was ill, everyone was waiting for him to die. At the time I was working for a news gathering agency and I usually answered the phone with "is he dead yet then?" such was the anticipation.

 

Michael Jackson was unique, a one-off. He is irreplacable; and for all the rumours about his health and the feeling that he wold never reach old age, his death still came as a shock and out of the blue. There hadn't been a death like this since Saint Diana. Therefore most significant death of 2009? Certainly. I'd argue it's the second most significant event of this decade in fact.

 

Michael who?

 

Kim Jong il could very well die this year. I'm sure there are more than a few folks who would argue that his death is more significant thant MJ's. Their argumetns would that Jong il was a powerful leader of a nation and is well known internationally. He has figured prominently into international politics. They would again say MJ is just "some entertainer."

 

I still think MJ's death is more significant, even if Kim Jong il were to pass away this year.

[Ra Ra Rasputin 99]

Kim Jong il could very well die this year. I'm sure there are more than a few folks who would argue that his death is more significant thant MJ's. Their argumetns would that Jong il was a powerful leader of a nation and is well known internationally. He has figured prominently into international politics. They would again say MJ is just "some entertainer."

 

I still think MJ's death is more significant, even if Kim Jong il were to pass away this year.

 

If Kim Jong il dies sometime soon, if it brought about change for better or worse on an international level, then it could possibly be classed as a more significant death than Jacko. However, 1) he's not dead yet (and I suspect the North Korean government and media would choose their timing and announcement very carefully, and 2) if, once dead, things carry on as per in North Korea then nothing changes.

 

Not particularly a fan this end, but as Vinegar Tits said, Michael Jackson was a one-off. We know the "Dear Leader" is ill; MJ's death came as more of a Dianaesque-type surprise shall we say.

[BCAlum2000 42]

Most significant deaths of each year since 2008...

 

2008: Paul Newman

2009: Michael Jackson

2010: Robert Byrd

2011: Steve Jobs

2012: Neil Armstrong

2013: Nelson Mandela

2014: Robin Williams

[Guest Sir Creep]

Sad to see this isn't filled out by everyone every year.

 

My definition is simply which death did I genuinely feel the worst about upon hearing and perhaps upon reflection.

 

2014 Top 5:

And the most important list, the top 5 deaths that made me feel sad when I heard them; the ones that mattered. With all due respect to Harold Ramis and Richard Kiel and musicians Jack Bruce, Paul Revere, Tommy Ramone and Dick Wagner (that would have been an awesome lineup!) the list is as follows:

 

5. Ron Oestrike/Bob Welch (Tie). The end of my Eastern Michigan Huron baseball program greatness, the decade or so it existed. [Note that's my alma mater and I'm aware they meant nothing for the UK pool].

 

4. Laren Becall. I fought so no one would list and jinx her; I shoulda let Dan Chambless put her on his list she'd still be with us. My favorite from an almost lost era. [i demanded no one list her and no one did: Dan has zero his this year].

 

3. Robin Williams. Moreso cuz it was stunning. But he was sick and brought a shocking awareness of what depression can do to even those us common folk think are immune and impervious. I wrote my diatribe about him a couple days later, we are not a better place in his absence.

 

2. Rik Mayall. Like Williams, unexpected. Like Williams, hilarious. Like Williams, leaving a void, moreso across the Pond. Maybe these two would be flip-flopped had Williams died first, or naturally.

 

1. Sir Richard Attenborough. I found all he worked on in cinema to be a delight. Almost a tad before my time, his prolific era being the 1960s. I watched two of his movies the next days after his passing and wished it wasn't so. [you Brits should be terribly find of Sir Richard. I watched Whistle Down the Wind, starting a young Haley Mills, the night I heard about it, I love that flick]

Sir Creep

[Whitehouse 872]

It's a toss-up for me this year between Robin Williams and Rik Mayall. Both were important in my youth. Williams for the small boy in me and Mayall for the adolecent me.

[Sean 6,329]

Twenty most significant deaths of 2014

 

1)Robin Williams

2)Rik Mayall

3)Richard Attenborough

4)Lauren Bacall

5)Shirley Temple

6)Joan Rivers

7)Mickey Rooney

8)Sue Townsend

9)Tony Benn

10)Roger Lloyd-Pack

11)Pete Seeger

12)James Garner

13)Ian Paisley

14)Mike Nichols

15)Eli Wallach

16)Sid Ceasar

17)Jeremy Thorpe

18)Lynda Bellingham

19)Joe Cocker

20)Acker Bilk

[Sean 6,329]

Most significant deaths since 2000

2000-

2001-

2002-Queen Mother

2003-Bob Hope

2004-Ronald Reagan

2005-Pope John Paul II

2006-Saddam Hussein

2007-Benazir Bhutto

2008-Charlton Heston

2009-Michael Jackson

2010-Michael Foot

2011-Osama Bin Laden

2012-Neil Armstrong

2013-Nelson Mandela

2014-Robin Williams

 

First ten people I can remember dying (I was born in 1994 and thisonly includes watching it on the news and remembering where I was):

1)Princess Margaret

2)Queen Mother

3)Adam Faith

4)Bob Hope

5)Christopher Reeve

6)Pope John Paul II

7)Richard Whiteley

8)Robin Cook

9)Mo Mowlam

10)Ronnie Barker

[Banshees Scream 110]

If it were not for Robin and Joan Rivers who would get the significant title without a shadow of a doubt and what defines significance? No one will know.

[ImNotHades 207]

update:

 

2015 - Leonard Nimoy

2016 - David Bowie - (for now)

[Eesti 151]

update:

 

2015 - Leonard Nimoy

Are you kidding?

[ImNotHades 207]

 

update:

 

2015 - Leonard Nimoy

Are you kidding?

 

It was either him or Lee....who else?

[Eesti 151]

 

 

update:

 

2015 - Leonard Nimoy

Are you kidding?

 

It was either him or Lee....who else?

 

I'd say Lee. World wide famous, many roles.

 

But I'd say that also Nash, Lemmy, Berra, Malone for example are more famous than Nimoy. Nimoy was just an old TV-series icon. Would e.g. Al Bundy die, would you consider that as the biggest death of a year? I don't think so.

[RadGuy 1,614]

 

 

 

 

 

 

update:

 

2015 - Leonard Nimoy

Are you kidding?

It was either him or Lee....who else?

I'd say Lee. World wide famous, many roles.

 

But I'd say that also Nash, Lemmy, Berra, Malone for example are more famous than Nimoy. Nimoy was just an old TV-series icon. Would e.g. Al Bundy die, would you consider that as the biggest death of a year? I don't think so.

Nimoy had the most coverage on social media for sure.