"the Red Cross" but no article in Greenpeace, UNICEF, or Amnesty International

Question

In an English language textbook for Italian middle school students, there is a reading exercise where students have to fill in the gaps. Here is a completed excerpt

The International Red Cross/Red Crescent is a global charity and humanitarian organisation. It believes that people everywhere have a right to life and health. …blah, blah, blah… The Red Cross / Red Crescent began its work in 1863. Today, it operates in 186 countries and every year it gives help to about 250 million people.

My two private students had to write a paragraph about a charitable institution of their own choice. We came up with 1. Médecins Sans Frontières (in Italian Medici Senza Frontiere) which is also known as Doctors Without Borders 2. Greenpeace and 3. Amnesty International. They each chose an institution and they all started their paragraphs with the definite article "the" just like in the textbook.

1. The Doctors Without Borders is a global charity and humanitarian…
2. The Greenpeace is a global charity and pacific organisation…

I crossed out the articles and said they weren't needed. Samuele asked me why–good for him–but I didn't know what to say, so I promised I would look into it.

While I can explain that the definite article is needed when we mention the United Nations Children's Fund because it is a collection of states/nations, and it is omitted when it is shortened to UNICEF. I don't know why the article is needed for the Red Cross but not for Doctors Without Borders or Amnesty International.

I'm also aware that if the name of a company or band starts with "The" e.g. The Beatles, The Leathersellers’ Company, and The Body Shop the article is always obligatory and always capitalised. However, the charity's name used in the book name is International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and yet the article is needed.

• Is there a reason? Why is the definite article necessary in the International Red Cross, but not for Greenpeace or Amnesty International?

Answer 1

Convention, yes, and I think there is a reason for the convention.

An acronym tends to serve as a proper name when pronounced as a word

I gave a penny to UNICEF
I gave a penny to Billy

but

I gave a penny to The United Nations Children's Fund
I gave a penny to the headmaster

So

...five million to NATO
...five million to The North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Greenpeace does not use the article, so the article would not be appropriate. Likewise Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International also use no article. The article should be used if the particular organization uses it.

US and UK are not pronounced as words, but as letters, so they use the article.

the UK
the US

ASCAP is pronounced as a word, so

I paid the fee to ASCAP

So, if an organization uses the article, it should be used when writing out the name. If an acronym of the organization is pronounced as a word or words, then no article should be used. If an acronym is pronounced as letters, then the article is appropriate.

I am not touching Arsenal, as I understand that is the Queen's favorite football team.

Answer 2

There is reasoning for this. According to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):

Articles and other determiners are used with proper nouns only when part of the noun is a common noun or the determiner provides emphasis. (5.6)

So, if you compare this to the "Red Cross" and "Doctors Without Borders", you will see that only the former has a common noun. Thus, the former is the only one requiring a determiner. Neither "Doctors" nor "Borders" meet the criteria required to be a common noun; they aren't singular.

The CMOS also states:

Names of companies, institutions, and similar entities are generally treated as collective nouns—and hence singular in American English, even when they are plural in form {General Motors reports that it will earn a profit} {American Airlines has moved its headquarters}. (5.15)

"Doctors Without Borders" does not need a determiner because it is treated as a collective noun in the singular form. I hope this clears things up.

Answer 3

Exceptions and Irregular Usages can Cloud General Rules

• Basically, the rules are quite clear – the Red Cross is an unusual case as it is a nickname that now looks more like a name that would fit the newer approaches below (where 'the' is avoided). The organization is still referred to as a 'society' and 'the' comes from that memory as well as 'committee' in its formal name.

The regular usage for entities is to refer to the entity with a 'the'

The cases where 'the' is not used:

• a proper name stands alone without an entity type within it:
• However, if the proper name refers to what is known to be a group, team or association it will revert to the regular use of 'the' ('the' Giants (football or baseball team), 'the' Rolling Stones, 'the Masons' ... also helped by being plural names)
• a small set of entity types where even if the entity type is in the title, 'the' is not used e.g., City, Street, Park, Universities

• oddly, museums and buildings generally get different treatment than streets

• if an 'of' syntax is used 'the' re-emerges i.e. he attends 'the' University of Washington' vs he attends Washington University

Acronyms: Acronyms will follow the use of "the" of the underlying words UNLESS the Acronym became so common in usage as a proper name in itself that the underlying alternation was lost.

Nicknames: Shorthand names will follow the use of 'the' of the full alliteration traditionally used ('the Fed' most commonly refers to actions of the Federal Reserve Board' - a group of people, and to a lesser extent the "Federal Reserve Bank") 'the' Red Cross gets its use of the article from its history as a 'society', its use of 'committee' in its formal name and its continued internal referrals within to its regional 'societies' or subsidiary 'societies'

The Evolution/History of use with proper names?

I would contend, that the ability for a proper name to stand alone without an entity type is a relatively modern change and that 'the' was nearly always used with all corporations and organizations. Older literature will refer to 'the' Ford Motor Company, or 'the General Motors company, or 'the' Standard Oil company'. We would still refer to 'the' South Sea Company as it never made the transition.

100 years ago the limited liability corporations with a perpetual life beyond the individuals that created them were still a relatively new structure... it took some major changes in law in the 1920s for the full nature to change and of course, our language will tend to tradition.

Eventually, new conventions formed and 'incorporated' IBM inc. etc was perhaps a transition.

Business literature has accepted a standard of omitting 'the' when referring to publicly traded companies regardless of whether an entity type like company or bank is used in the formal name. "Apple Inc." or "Ford Motor Company" both without 'the' ... "Bank of America" or "Citibank" both without 'the'.

Charities: I would argue that the 'exceptions' in the OP question where 'the' is omitted - purposefully followed the modern convention of corporations

• all omitted a normal entity name from their formal name (Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders / Medicines Sans Frontieres, Greenpeace)
  Also carefully self refer not as a 'club' or group or use 'the' in referring to themselves internally "Doctors" in is plural very easily .. could have gotten a 'the' without what I would call a very deliberate effort in their marketing.

• no forced convention to treat all charities the same has developed as has been the case with corporations.

• I might argue moving to the same uniform standard that applies to corporations has not yet happened because a fair number of the charities still consider themselves as 'clubs' with 'members' (and even things far from 'clubs' like NPR and museums often retain 'member' designation for donors or subscribers). Some Associations truly want to emphasize that they do NOT have a life of their own but are immediately re-portable to their members .. perhaps the AMA and ABA and certain niche trade associations.

All that is left, is to take remaining names and see IF any that do not use 'the' fit firmly into one of the few situations.

The Red Cross maintains the definite article from its roots as a society and its longer official name, including 'committee' as well as not repudiating the use of 'the' internally. If a new charity were formed called "Red Cross" alone, it would not get a 'the' treatment .. if it were called "Red Cross Organization" it probably would get a 'the' as charities have not been forced to a standard without 'the'.

I have already discussed that both "Amnesty International" and "Doctors without Borders" actively chose the modern convention used by corporations in self referal as well as leaving an entity type out from their name.

NATO – is an odd one in that any "alliance" or non-corporate group with an entity name within it gets a 'the'. I believe NATO is irregular in that the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" is obscured "NATO" is more like Ford or Amazon - it was early in that use I believe but the WWI ANAZAC was treated similarly... even though that C in there is for 'corps' there was an 'ANAZAC Corps' which would have been redundant.

UNICEF – while it does occasionally use the full alteration including 'Fund' in some internal references the acronym is particularly branded as a name in itself. While that might be a bit 'grey' to some, it is aided that it also is not thought of as a club or group of people like the NAACP is (and National Association of Color People still might be in mind). While UNICEF is a well-known charity I think most would struggle to think of the title ... even an hour later after re-reading it ... it is simply more like "Unicef", not a U.N.I.C.E.F. unlike 'the' FBI where people know it's short for something and would give at least an "Oh, yeah" to Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I believe I have covered most and could address and add others.

I do think that all of the names that avoid "the" are exceptionally proper names and those that retain a 'the' with what seems to fit the proper name rule are modern nicknames for 'societies' that retain the longer formal name or tradition.