Talk:Cubs–White Sox rivalry

Socioeconomics

In the "Socioeconomics", the idea that affluence is attributed to any one team is absurd. There is no proof that the Cubs are a team that attracts the affluent, while the White Sox attracts the non-affluent. It is also ridiculous to say that one race prefers one team, while another prefers the other. Couldn’t that be eliminated?

• It's a stereotype only, and should be labeled as such. The stereotype is that the Cubs attract yuppies and the Sox attract the working class. Wahkeenah 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If anything, the entire section should be deleted. It's baseless and silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.88.53.27 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch for POV Vandalism

"The rivalry is so heated, that it can be considered a "civil war" for the city, with the only thing keeping the city together for many years were the Chicago Bulls and Chicago Bears. However, because of the growing number of Cub fans becoming fans of the Green Bay Packers, which of course, are the Bears biggest rival, many Sox fans, from some peoples' perspectives, are paranoid that Cub fans are Packer fans, so the Bears have now entered the rivalry, with Sox fans saying that since they are Bears fans, Cub fans are, in fact, traitors to the city, and saying that, despite loving a legendary part of the city, which is Wrigley Field, they are "fair-weather" Chicagoans. Of course, a few Cubfans will deny this, especially Jim Belushi, who is a die-hard Bears fan."

"The only problem with this, is the Cubs' history of choking and failure, it could be long time before the Cubs finally win which is great from a Sox fan's perspective."

I'm going to revert to my last edit, and keep an eye out for other POV bull.

What's this bullcrap about Cub fans begin PAcker fans. not true at all. Im a Sox fan, yrt I find a way to unite with cubs fan during football season--Arusnak 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

-- gavindow 00:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Watch for POV vandalism: team swapping

We're getting regular POV vandalism from an anonymous user who is swapping the names of the two teams with no regard to the facts related, and also swapping the position in which the two team names appear, which at this point should simply be left consistent with the title, or as it is.Patrick Sheehan 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Several minor points.

-Maybe at the end of the first paragraph where it mentions that the Red Line is the only thing the teams have in common an addition could be made to include Harry Caray (who broadcasted for both teams), and perhaps a chart of players that have played for both teams could be added at the end (e.g. Steve Stone, Luis Salazar, Jason Bere, Sammy Sosa, George Bell, Rich "Goose" Gossage, Greg Hibbard, Don Pall, Matt Karchner, Scott Fletcher, Ron Santo, Don Kessinger, etc...).

-I also think that some tidbits could be added regarding the exhibition series' (i.e. "The Cross-town Classic") that the two teams played prior to inter-league play. Maybe include the record. I'm sure it exists somewhere from these games.

-Oh, and the Major League debut of Michael Jordan in a Sox uniform at the was during a Cub-Sox clash at Wrigley Field.

-In the media section there was mention of the broadcasting disparity on WGN of Cub games to Sox games. I believe this is actually due to the contract Sox majority owner Jerry Reinsdorf has with WGN, and not necessarily because of a bias on the part of the Tribune. (It's a minor point).

Ered7 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

–In the Performance Section it says that, with the exception of the Cubs-Cards rivalries that the other major rivalries include teams that go to the World Series on a "fairly regular basis." I'll give you that a team like the Yankees or Cardinals is in the World Series on a "fairly regular basis," but the Mets?

grfnkmp 15:50, 07 July 2008 (CDT)

The major league schedule usually has one team on the road while the other was at home. Only on rare occassions would both teams play at home. Even then, throughout the 1960s, the Cubs always played in the daytime while the Sox scheduled as many night games as they could. I do recall one day, circa 1964-65 when a Cub doubleheader at Wrigley was followd by a White Sox twilight-night doubleheader at Comiskey, thus four games in Chicago that day.

On at least one occasion in the same time frame, both teams played at home in the afternoon. WGN television had a crew at each park and cut back and forth bhetween the games.

Someone may want to research those. I may have time after I retire. WHPratt (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Line Rivalry

I've never heard this term and I've been a Chicagoan and a purveyor of trash talk for years. I've NEVER heard that term. It needs sourcing or deletion.

I agree. I'm going to change this to "Crosstown Classic" to match the conversation below. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been a White Sox fan since May 3, 1969, my birth date. I have always known this rivalry as the Crosstown Classic as well.

 The south end (south of Harrison/State) of the now-called 'Red Line' has only been referred to as the Red Line since around 1992/93.  The term 'HO DAR'(short for Howard-Dan Ryan) was used for a bit, but eventually the CTA went with the 'color coding' across the entire system.  They connected the Dan Ryan train to the subway, rather than have it elevated through the Loop (in preparation for the 'Orange Line', which would be built soon).  So, that being said, we Soxsiders have never called the Dan Ryan part of the CTA the Red Line.  It was always called the 'Dan Ryan' train. 

Please note: A Cub fan not born and raised in Chicago probably created that term! LOL

Doreelee (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Crosstown classic

This should be renamed Crosstown Classic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.43.206 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The article is named as such to match with other rivalry articles. I'm going to change the "also known as" however. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I grew up with the term "Crosstown Classic," not "Sox-Cubs Rivalry." I feel it would be best to revert to "Crosstown Classic" for this article, and to encourage neutral names for similar rivalries around baseball when applicable: Subway Series for New York, Freeway Series for Los Angeles, I-55 Series for Cubs-Cardinals. That way, we can avoid so-called vandalism with Sox-Cubs and Cubs-Sox being flip-flopped. Brackenborough 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current title is more appropriate. The term Crosstown Classic used to very specifically apply to the annual exhibition game. It is sometimes used to apply to individual games in the series, but I have never heard the actual rivalry called the Crosstown Classic.TeganX7 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Windy City Classic?" I believe that's what the one-game exhibition was called when I was growing up (late 80s early 90s)? Dburba (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth adding what Brian Anderson did to get his suspension after the 2006 brawl. He didn't get in trouble for hitting a sac fly, he got in trouble for punching John Mabry in the gut, or, at the very least, generally exacerbating the the fray.67.103.5.28 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Cubs and Sox played an annual "Boys Benefit Game" exhibition in the 1960s and 1970s and that is how I remember the rivalry, not any of these other names listed. I presume that area boys clubs were a benefactor, but I do not know. I remember Ernie Banks returning to SS in one of those games late in his career. Perhaps Chicago Tribune archives can illuminate this point. Who else only remembers the "Boys Benefit Games" between the Cubs and the Sox?

By the Numbers

After thinking about it, I decided to add a chart comparing the teams with some numbers. Most of the info was added up from mlb.com. Some of this info may not be all that important. It is very rough, and I welcome improvementsTeganX7 06:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Socioeconomics section

There are no sources cited here at all, and it seems like total nonsense to me. The entire socioeconomics section seems unfit for the article; to make claims that Cubs fans are more affluent than Sox fans is ridiculous without backup support. This is stated in this section, but there is much else that is totally unnecessary. There should be a sentence, at most, concerning this. Unless there is a sudden influx of sources or good arguments for, I'm going to just get rid of the section. Stever Augustus 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

"White Sox fans in general (although not all) have a much stronger hatred toward the Cubs. This could be due to many reason, some being that White Sox fans see the need to justify why the Cubs consistently sell out their home games even during losing seasons when the Sox can not do so unless it is a world series game."

lol Cubs favouritism
Yoshiman64 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

The image Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:CHC-MLB-alternate.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interleague schedule 2009

They had a rainout in their first series this year. You'd think that they'd try to schedule a split-ballpark doubleheader to make it up in the second series as the Yankees and Mets did a few years ago. Hadn't read anything pertaining to that possibility so far. WHPratt (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Add some sources

This could be a much better article if it actually had some sources. Please don't add any new material without including your source. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Game Scores

Why are the dates the same, yet the dates on the edit page are right, that needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.20.21 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

History

One-third of that section concerns 2010 association with the Chicago ice hockey championship. One third concerns 1997-2009, the rest of interleague play. One third concerns the first ninety-seven years, essentially an overview of Year 1900 and a reference to the one World Series. Ahem. --P64 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The current article is still heavily-weighed toward modern-day series, which is not even what the Retrosheet work on City Series is concerned with. The traditional City Series was strictly post-season, much like the World Series. The article barely mentions the traditional and definitive City Series between the Sox and Cubs from approx 1903 to 1942. That is what I came here to find out about; instead I find next to nothing on "the historic exhibition", and a lot of coverage about recent inter-league play. I came here from the disambiguation page on City Series, expecting an article on the traditional City Series that Retrosheet talks about. Frankly the article on the City_Series_(Philadelphia) is much more in line with Retrosheet and a much more balanced coverage between the traditional "exhibitions" and the modern inter-league play. Sp3lly (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrosheet coverage

See "Regional Postseason Series" at Retrosheet.

Those series, including three matching Cleveland and Cincinnati, were official—sanctioned by Baseball. They exclude preseason (none sanctioned), mid-season (none sanctioned), and unsanctioned postseason games matching the same teams. --P64 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What's with the Blackhawks

It appears that one or a few editors have been putting in a lot of stuff about the Hakws Stanley Cup in this article. I like the Hawks like any Chicagoan, but it really has no place in this article. I removed some of it, and will likely be hitting the rest of it soon ... unless there is some good reason it shouldn't. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - this is totally random and does not deserve a mention, much less its own section. The only tie to Cubs/Sox right now is the idea that it brought "peace" to the rivalry, but nothing supports that. The victory parade, cheering at Wrigley during the national anthem, etc. does not pertain to this article. Greenth (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Blackhawks text that had no relationship to this rivalry.Greenth (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2010 series at Wrigley Field was overshadowed by the Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup. It brought peace to the rivalry and yes, the White Sox going a long time without a championship was also seen in the Blackhawks. The cheering at Wrigley Field during the anthem was part of the moment of peace, as was Blackhawks players singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." – SNIyer12, (talk), 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While I can appreciate this point of view, and might even agree with some of it, some of this is clearly original research ... To some people the series was overshadowed by the Hawks ... but to a lot of people it was a non factor. Brought peace to the rivalry? What evidence is there for this besides the opinion that there was screaming during the national anthem. Again, I respect the opinions, but this is an encyclopedia, and opinions need to be kept out. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It brought peace to the rivalry, as the entire city of Chicago was united for the Blackhawks. Mayor Richard M. Daley declared the day the series began "Chicago Blackhawks Day" in the city of Chicago, as it was the day of the parade for the Blackhawks. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

SNIyer, you have a habit of adding to articles entire paragraphs full of information that is at best tangentially related to the topic at hand. It also tends to reek of original research and synthesis, which is not allowed. Your assertion that this was a "moment of peace" is refuted by that phrase not appearing in any of the sources. It is your own invention, and you have overused that term in nearly every rivalry article. Finally, unilaterally reverting information that has been deleted after multiple editors have confirmed that they do not think it belongs borders on demonstrating ownership over an article. I think you are a good editor that makes some great contributions to the sports articles, but please try to keep these things in mind. I'm deleting the section on the Blackhawks again as several editors have objected to it and the only person who seems to be in favor of including it is you. At best, this deserves a sentence or two, not an entire paragraph. If you want to revise it and reinsert it into some other section and see if it meets without objection, go ahead. TempDog123 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one Chicago entry in the NFL, NBA and NHL, so it stands to reason that those teams would have fans all over the city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

True enough. However, my older relatives in Chicago maintained that when the Chicago Bears were based in Wrigley Field and the Chicago Cardinals in Comiskey Park, the city's sports fans used to divide into the Cubs/Bears group and the Sox/Cardinals group. This situation might warrant a mention, if we can find some concrete evidence. WHPratt (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There was unquestionably a Bears-Cardinals rivalry. George Halas used to talk about how those otherwise-inept Cardinals might manage to beat the Bears late in the season and ruin their playoff hopes. It's been over 50 years since the Cardinals left Chicago, and over 40 since the Bears moved to Soldier Field, so I expect there aren't all that many Bears-haters left in town (except for the ones who root for the Packers). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was primarily a North Side vs South Side phenomenon. Some old folks can't understand how you can support both the Bears and the White Sox. WHPratt (talk)

Sure. But if not the Bears, then who? The Packers? The Colts? The Arizona Cardinals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cubs Curse and ex-Cubs Curse not at all part of the topic of this article

The material on the Cubs Curse and the ex-Cubs factor have little connection with the Chicago City Series - or even in a broader article about the Sox - Cubs rivalry. Sp3lly (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just in the context of the similar "curse" on the Sox, due to the 1919 World Series, seemingly expunged in 2005. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But there already exists an entire page dedicated to the curse, and it is explained in detail on the Cubs page. So it doesn't seem necessary in this article. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just as some "see alsos". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually disagree in this instance. I think the long droughts of the two teams is worth a mention in the context of the rivalry, as is any related "curse," and the eventual 2005 championship of the White Sox. That the two Chicago teams battling each other went so long without a championship, and one of them finally won it again, is of note. However, I can agree that the section is probably way longer than it needs to be. This warrants a mention, not a multi-paragraph subsection. TempDog123 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cubs–White Sox rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ftw.usatoday.com/2012/05/chicago-cubs-white-sox-preview-things-to-watch-mlb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501003305/http://chicagoist.com/2010/04/27/obama_tweaks_cubs_while_hosting_the.php to http://chicagoist.com/2010/04/27/obama_tweaks_cubs_while_hosting_the.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Add notable rivalry moments section?

Could we add notable moments from the past from this rivalry? Like besides the brawl between Pierzynski and Barrett like other notable moments like the 17-14 final score game from 2021 or Eloy Jimenez go ahead homer from 2019 against his former team or Aramis Ramirez's walk off home run from 2008. I know this rivalry isn't as big as Yankees-Red Sox but there is some moments we could add in a notable moments section. Chicagosports2004 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit trivial and subjective to have a list of games that are arbitrarily deemed "notable". It's something you see more often in a listicle. Is it notable because something interesting happened, or because there has been significant media coverage to this day. Yankees–Red Sox rivalry is a good example that's GA-tier that recounts the history of the two teams with proper context and historical significance. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)