Sorry for not having seen your question before. I have just removed the reference to Josef Mengele (and the back link in that article, too). The extlink given does not state anything like that, and the trial proceedings from the Mazal library do not indicate that Mengele was tried at all in that trial. He was not included in the indictment, and neither did the tribunal issue any judgment or sentence on him. AFAIK (and that seems to be corroborated by the extlink you gave) Mengele wasn't tried at all. Lupo 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the Nazi party as a whole was declared criminal. The SS was.
Totady, I found that by making incorrect link and merging two biographies, someone persistently confuses Dr. Fritz Fischer, the defendant in Doctors' Trial with a historian prof. emeritus Fritz Fischer the author of Griff nach der Weltmacht (1961; tr. Germany’s Aims in the First World War, 1967). I have created separete article about Dr. med. Fritz Fischer and corrected the link in Doctors' Trial article.--fitzner 15:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doctors' trial → Doctors' Trial – In nearly every source I can find, this is capitalized as "Doctors' Trial", in the form of a proper name. This includes (some examples I found on Google, not that these are all authoritative): the Harvard Law School Library Nuremberg Trials Project, the Florida Supreme Court, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Am J Public Health, the State of Washington, Jewish Law.com, World War II Database, and the Museum of Jewish Heritage. I think this argument is supported by the fact that our article is called "Doctors' trial", as opposed to something like "Doctor trials at Nuremberg", showing that the abbreviated name has become the common proper name, as opposed to just a descriptor. I am fully ready to admit that I do not have access to all the scholarly sources, and if it is shown that my argument is incongruous with these, I will withdraw. Otherwise, I think this change makes sense per what this trial is referred to in common parlance. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 13:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: this article was moved to the current capitalization in 2014 (from Doctors' Trial), along with a batch of similarly situated articles. The consensus was to move all on the basis that these were descriptive names, and not proper names. However, I think that the survey of the sources mentioned above is enough to rebut this contention; I think it is fair to say that Doctors' Trial has become the common name (if, in fact, that was not the case in 2014), and not just a descriptor. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 13:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I would encourage you to provide external links to those sources, just for each participant to be able to click through and verify for themselves the capitalization at those places. Thanks. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 12:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support In addition to the above, Google NGrams has the capitalized version dominate  and searching for "Doctors' trial" Nuremberg in Google Scholar shows the first page results all but one (at least for me) with preview snippets that capitalize as proposed .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljleppan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]