Talk:Judge C. R. Magney State Park

Devil's Kettle
Would like to see this part cleaned up. In the past there was much speculation on where the water goes, but I think now it's pretty well understood that it soon joins back to main body of the river. Scott Carpenter 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this? All the information I have read say that they do not know where the water goes. --E tac (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider discussing things as drastic as merges before doing them. Thanatosimii 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * These are two small articles of one paragraph each, so I didn't think it would require a summit or anything. I guess I've been schooled.  For what it's worth, I did mention merging them in the Devil's Kettle discussion page (as Rufus Sarsparilla) and it didn't draw much commentary.  Also as Rufus, I added the picture that created the original Judge Magney article, so I know it's not like this is some bedrock article of Wikipedia. Anyway, it's true that I don't know or follow many accepted processes here, and I don't have the time or energy to spend a lot of time on a pair of one paragraph articles, so it appears you will get your way.  Scott Carpenter 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Follow-up to remind myself to breathe and not get carried away. I'm fine with separate articles, and I appreciate the work you're doing on Wikipedia, T. Scott Carpenter 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC))


 * New to this. I'd like to see a separate article for "Devil's Kettle." I think the fact this this is one of nature's "unsolved mysteries" warrants it's own page.--EinsteinsBro (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I've looked and looked and never found additional reliable sources on the Devil's Kettle. Without those I don't see much potential for expansion into a separate article. -McGhiever (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the researchers that did the dye tests and such? Did they document their tests? This would flesh out at least the ongoing process to solve the mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.43.204 (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

See below

Grand Portage State Park vs. Superior National Forest
Presently the article doesn't mention explicitly Grand Portage State Park or Superior National Forest. It appears to me that the State Park is contained with Grand Portage State Park which is itself part of Superior National Forest. I am not confident of the relationship between Grand Portage State Park and Superior National Forest however. If somebody knows what the deal is, it'd be worthwhile to have a sentence in the lead paragraph to the affect of, "Magney State Park is contained within _________". Jason Quinn (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Grand Portage SP and Judge C.R. Magney SP are separate state parks both managed by the state of Minnesota under the Department of Natural Resources. They do not touch at all.  While Grand Portage SP is within the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, I don't think Magney SP is.  A lot of the land in the Minnesota Arrowhead region is part of Superior National Forest, which is managed by the federal government under the U.S. Forest Service.  As is usual with National Forests, Superior NF is a mosaic of federally owned land, federally owned land leased to private businesses, and private inholdings.  Some National Forest land may touch Magney SP but not to the degree that I would say it is "contained within".  Most online mapping services simply don't depict public land boundaries at a level of detail necessary to suss all this out.  I know an excellent print map resource that I will check next time I'm at the public library.  As it happens, Magney SP is next on my list of articles to expand after the one I'm working on right now, Split Rock Lighthouse SP. McGhiever (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I was worried that the particulars were more complicated than could be discerned from the few online maps I found. Your information justifies that concern. Maybe the weaker phrasing "Magney State Park is surrounded by Grand Portage State Park" is still justified? Dunno. Good luck with the expansion of the article. "Devil's Kettle" sounds like a great place to see someday. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, just to finish the conversation: Judge Magney State Park is surrounded by land of Grand Portage State Forest, which is a separate entity from Grand Portage State Park. Confusion is understandable; there's also Grand Portage National Monument and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation. McGhiever (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Glacial pothole
I admit what little I know of kettles stems from reading Wikipedia articles, but I think there's something wrong with the description of Devil's Kettle as a glacial pothole. In the article, "glacial pothole" is piped to Giants kettle, and from the photo and that article, that's what I think this is. However, the Giants kettle article doesn't say that "glacial pothole" is another term for this geologic feature. Indeed, glacial pothole actually redirects to Kettle (landform), which seems to be a different animal altogether. Since I don't see anything in Giants kettle that implies anything glacial, I've replaced all references to "glacial pothole" in this article with "giants kettle" or "pothole" (depending on what sounds better). --Floquensock (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe "giants kettle" is exclusively a British English term; certainly I've never seen it used in any American English resource. Per WP:TIES, I suggest that an article on an American park not use "giants kettle".  On the other hand, I'm in full agreement that in the U.S. "pothole" can geologically refer both to this phenomenon of riverbeds and to kettle lakes.  The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources consistently calls the former "glacial potholes" even though the latter is more directly created by glaciers.  For my part, I suggest we drop the "glacial" bit and just call it a "pothole" with a link to the "giants kettle" article. McGhiever (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good solution to me. --Floquensock (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Devil's kettle
Is it me, or would it be very simple to just drop a simple GPS transmitter down the hole, and seeing where it pops up again? The signal could fade out when it's under the rocks, but if it resurfaces, it can be tracked back to the hole. Has this ever been tried? If it has, what were the results, and if it hasn't, why not?Joeytje50 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just thought of that as well, but there might be problems: we simply don't know the route the water flows. Under the pothole, there might be just a big cave. And we don't know if the "drain" from that cave is above (or rather the edge of) or under the water. So we don't know if our GPS needs to be floating or sinking. Furthermore, GPS doesn't work under water. So in case it would need to sink, the transmitter can't get a reliable signal. If it floats, it might just never leave the cave. Of course, we could throw in plenty of different transmitters, hoping that at least one gets through and probably sends back a position. But another problem is that there might not be big channles where the water flows through but rather sandy passages where simply everything gets stuck and can't pass, accumulating down there.
 * However, I wonder why we don't reduce the flow into the hole (as much as possible so the other half of the river can cope with it) and just go down there as a human being, exploring it as exploration is meant to be done.
 * Not to mention the million other ways to explore that hole. They could even use techniques from the nuclear medicine, using slightly radioactive materials and follow their way (or scan for their output).
 * Soo... who's with me, let's go down there and do some exploring ;D --87.171.128.107 (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't they just send a sewer/pipline/drain inspection camera down the, er, drain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.251.2 (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mystery solved?
See, Brooks, Jennifer, Scientists think they've solved the mystery of Devil's Kettle Falls. Minneapolis Star-Tribune, February 28, 2017.

Kablammo (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I will add a link to the MPR story to the article in preference to the one listed above. Startribune links will disappear behind a paywall; MPR links will not.  Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Inoperative link in reference number 16
This citation (number 16): Friedrichs, Joe (2017-12-17). "DNR does not complete dye-trace study at Devil's Kettle". WTIP. Retrieved 2018-05-07. has a link that does not work correctly. I don't know how to label it as a dead link, or even whether that is what I should do. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

✅ Looks like that site had changed there urls, but it's fixed now Cmr08 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)