In Michael Palin's excellent show about the First World War, this amazing fact emerged.

10,000 dead in one day!

We were clearly as barmy as a species then as we are now.

Casualties, not dead.

None the lees barmy but more accurate.

No, Zoo, 10,000 killed including Wilfred Owen...

That's what Palin said. And many more who took time to die of their wounds.

A written account seems to disagree with your memory (3rd paragraph)

Wilfred Owen died on the 4th November not the 11th - did the BBC miss two rather obvious errors or is there another reason?

ETA

Paul Reed, one of the researchers, has addressed your Owen error on the excellent Long Long Trail Forum

The people on that forum can spot the wrong sort of aglet and complain. They would certainly not overlook the errors you think Palin made.

It seems the errors are not Palin's

I think Palin might have gotten carried away but if you missed the show it's well worth catching on iPlayer.

His heart is in the right place (he did say Owen died 7 days earlier and it took 8 days for the telegram to be delivered)...

The awful statistics may be confused but (rather like the Rwandan genocide in the 90s) it's a much ignored and totally frightful time in the decline of the human race into an inhuman debacle.

It's not Palin JK it's you.

The statistics are not confused, you are.

The same thing arises over the Battle of the Somme where casualties and killed are taken to mean killed. What emerges is an over-simplistic "tabloid" version of events.

The lack of simple comprehension is worrying and a far wider problem than long past events.

If we wish to criticise others then it is better if we do not do what we criticise and if we do we ought to admit it with good grace before mending our ways the best we can.