** What are everyone's thoughts on this ? I think it's important to maintain the document integrity. I also think that some of these documents need to relay the right information... Is there a middle road ? Should we make changes in these cases ? **

Mark / Tom --

The right thing and the best thing to do is transcribe it as accurately as humanly possible, warts and all, as written.

I would then place an "Editor's Note" at the very beginning:

"I have attempted to transcribe this Unit History exactly as it was written in 1970. There were NO parentheses in the original document. All italic text enclosed in parentheses in this transcribed document is corrected spelling, clarification, or other new information added by me, or by others, after the original document was written."

Then, for instance, in the text:

1 March, Crewchief, SP/5 John C. Schiffhaver (Schiffhauer), was mortally wounded (at LZ Swinger) while trying to suppress ground fire during a combat assault.

Parenthese AND italics tell the reader immediately that there is something different about the information on the page.

The integrity of the original is maintained, while useful information and corrected data is easily communicated to the reader. Also easy to do.

Also, for instance, Dave Fogg's note about "Light Ruck" by Tom Lacombe could be added, which I think is valuable stuff.

Whatever you're comfortable with is fine with me, though. I'm just glad to have this after 35 years.

Bob