This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alaska Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles Russia: History / Physical geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force. Ecoregions Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.EcoregionsWikipedia:WikiProject EcoregionsTemplate:WikiProject EcoregionsEcoregions articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Volcanoes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Russian citizenship" would have been the wrong term then - try "Russian subject". PML.

Perhaps you haven't picked up on the fact that you can edit this page? - smp

In 1913 the entire chain was set aside as the Aleutian Islands Reservation, refuge for birds and native animals. The islands are now part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

What's the name(s) of the island(s) that are Russian? -- Golbez 16:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

They are the Commander Islands. But this brings up a question: altough the Commander Islands are in many ways ecologically part of the Aleutians, I think that from a mapping / geography point of view, the "Aleutian Islands" do not include the Commander Islands. In fact in the section below, the latitude/longitude range excludes the Commander Islands. It would be great if some mapping / place naming specialists could address this... tivp 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Is the "T" hard or soft? A-loot-ee-an or Alooshian? -- 161.73.58.135 08:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Aleutian the "T" is soft. However in Aleut referring to the native people the "T" is hard.

• The "t" is neither hard nor soft. It is not pronounced. The adjective "Aleutian" is pronounced "Uh LOO shun". And, as the person before me indicated, when pronouncing the name of the people, the "t" is pronounced. Where most people go wrong with the word for the people, "Aleut", is trying to say it with only two syllables. It is correctly pronounced, "al ee OOT". Seriously. (I thought it was a joke at first, like someone was making an allusion to the comic strip, "Alley Oop", but no, that's how it's said.) Unschool 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

how many islands are there?

There are more than 200 islands containing more than 50 volcanoes.

I want to say that, first of all, the picture just added by User:Conscious is very pretty. Unfortunately, it also might provide the wrong impression of the chain.

Most Americans living Outside still tend to think of Alaska as a snow-covered domain, year round. Well, that is simply untrue of Alaska in general, and even less so of the Aleutians. While the Aleutians will get blanketed with snow in the winter, that cover will usually not last (below 1000 ft. altitude) for more that a couple of days, as the more common rains will melt the snow. This picture is beautiful, but not representative. Might someone be able to come up with a better shot? I myself do not know how to access such things. Unschool 17:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I was listening to NPR's "Says You" and they had question about what countires border the United States. Aside from the obvious ones, Canada and Mexico, the host said that Russia was also a country that the US shares a border with due to the fact that one of the western most islands in the Aleutians is actually split between the US and Russia. He either didn't specifically say which one it was. Anyone know?

This is patently false. The closest that this comes to being true is in the middle of the Bering Strait, where there are a pair of islands known as the Diomedes. Big Diomede Island, which is Russian territory, lies approximately 2.5 miles west of Little Diomede Island, which is US territory. The international boundary, as well as the International Date Line, runs between them. On a (rare) clear day, they are easily visible from one another. Unschool 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

They sure are close. Sarah Palin 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.232.27 ( talk)

Not much on the people of these islands -- Drgs100 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a question about the wording used in the Demographics section: "The native people refer to themselves as Unangan, and are now generally known by most non-natives as the 'Aleut.'"

If the native people "refer to themsevles as" something, then, isn't that what they are? Shouldn't it read something like, "The native people are (called) Unangan, but they are generally (incorrectly!) called 'Aleut' by most non-natives."

Otherwise it sort of sounds like they don't know their own name.

Srmyers 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Names are names. Why should their own name get priority? You make no sense. 216.37.221.72 ( talk) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

according to the article there is 80 inches of rain annually in Unalaska but according to http://www.alaskan.com/places/unalaska.html there is 48-50 inches per year.

So, is this article about the Aleutian island chain (as visible on maps like Image:LA2-Bering-Sea-UTM-zones.png), or the Aleutian part of Alaska ( Aleutians West/ East census area/borough)? In the former (IMO more correct/NPOV) case, I think the Komandorski Islands should be listed as one of six island groups under Geography. -- Kimiko 17:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The Komandorski Islands are geographically not part of the Aleutian chain. Optically and superficially the appear as a western continuation, when looking at maps or images, but they are separated by a gap of 325 km from the Aleutians, a gap much larger than found anywhere within the Aleutian chain (the largest gap within the Aleutians appears 120 km from Shemya Island to Buldir Island), and more importantly, they are geologically separated by the northernmost reaches of the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench and a corresponding depth of to 5,139 meters (some infos from German Wikipedia, others measured from images).-- Ratzer ( talk) 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to see more clear proof that they are separated by part of the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench. All of the maps I see (via web search) indicate the trench staying south of the island chain, and a pretty clear continuity from the US Aleutians to the Komandorskis. See e.g. this map. That seems to endorse Kimiko's position. -- Spireguy ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

After looking deeper into the matter, I'm not at all certain whether the German Wikipedia is right here. I found or could think of three points against it: (1) Britannica mentions the islands as part of the Aleutian chain. (2) NASA Blue Marble images show the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench (or its northern reaches) between the Komandorski Islands and Kamchatka, not east of the islands. (3) The large 325 km gap does not have to mean much when it contains submarine volcanoes along the chain that do not quite reach the water surface. The NASA Blue Marble images of the area suggest the existence of such bathymetric features. (4) Here is one more point for the other side (in favor of considering the Komandorski Islands not part of the Aleutian chain): The Aleutian subgroup of the Near Islands received their name from a Russian perspective, being so called for their relative nearness to (Asian) Russia. The Komandorski Islands, however, are much nearer to Russia than the Near Islands.-- Ratzer ( talk) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In any case, a map showing the location of the Aleutians on a larger scale, like Image:Bering_Sea_Location.gif would be useful near the start of the article, and a more detailed map (similar to Image:Western_Aleutians.png, but larger) would be useful in the Geography section, to make it clear where the major groups of islands are. Do any of you know of such a map? — Kimiko 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm. The only halfway decent maps I could find are these two: Image:Aleutian_Islands.PNG on Wikimedia Commons, and BeringSea.jpg on a .NOAA.gov website. Something like the first would be useful to show how the Komandorski Islands are part of the Aleutian archipel/island chain. The second would be more useful when describing the island groupings.

That's not a lot of choice. Any map creating wizards around? — Kimiko 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A couple of problems.

First, the statement that Lend-Lease aircraft from the U.S. to Russia stopped along the Aleutians is disputable. See Weeks, Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, which discusses the Siberian air bridge in detail. The main route passed through Nome, well to the north of the Aleutians.

Second, Parshall and Tully, Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, present evidence that the Aleutians operation was no diversion, but an independent operation mounted own its own (dubious) merits for which the Midway operation provided a useful diversion.

128.165.87.144 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You seem to have good sources, so you can edit the page accordingly. Although I must say I'm surprised the hear the claim that Midway was a "diversion"---not that I'm remotely an expert! -- Spireguy 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A 1969 book, "Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians", Brian Garfiel, Classic Reprint Series (Fairbanks, Alaska), No. 4.) lays out a strong case that the Aleutian battles were a campaign of their own. While related temporally to Midway, they appear, at least to the author, to have their own objectives, that being the timber and mineral wealth of Alaska. Also told in sad detail is the fate of those Aleutians captured by the Japanse and enslaved in the tin mines. It provides a useful perpective on the competing public interests which resulted in the native internment programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.135.1 ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The globe image in the info box needs to be changed or removed. It has a single red dot in the vicinity of Akutan, which misleads, since the entire chain should be colored red. Un sch ool 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Still an issue, eight years later

This map showing the location of the Aleutians relative to the rest of the world is simply unacceptable. It shows, by way of a dot, a single island (probably Amaknak or Unalaska) of an 1100 mile long chain. I think this is enough of an issue to consider removing it if a more satisfactory map cannot be found. Un sch ool 03:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

After ten years, we continue to have a map that is literally worse than having no map at all. As I stated above, you cannot represent an 1100 mile long chain of islands with a single dot (unless perhaps the view is one from several million miles away from earth). I am going to remove this map, which is literally disinformation, and hopefully someone can find something better. Un sch ool 19:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I was exploring this article when I checked the link of Shelikov Company. It takes you to Russian - American Company. Therein in Shelikov is shown as one of the organizer of the company which was basically a state sponsored company. There also the Shelikov link is still an un-written link. I suggest those who have knowledge about, must modify both the articles so that it can be clear that how the Russian American Company is stated as Shelikov Company and nothing is told about Shelikov. ON the other hand, two of his partners have dedicated articles on them. --Sumir 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma ( talk • contribs)

A complete listing of the islands would be helpful and encyclopedic. I've seen estimates of the number as anywhere from over 200 to over 300; having the names, in geographic order from east to west or west to east, would go a long way toward definitiveness. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 09:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Why there is no mention of voilence, murder,rape and killing heaped upon native people by russian fur traders? poorly armed local people were frequently killed enmass by intruding fur traders not only that, fur traders killed sea mammals for fur depleting local people of their food source. Entire unangan culture which has survived for thousands of years, was destroyed by fur trading russians. The arrival of russians brought small pox and other deadly diseases that decimated the native popualtion. This article needs to be updated with correct historical facts. As it stands now, the article looks biased toward russian entry in the islands. Lokesh 2000 ( talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) reply

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

— 41.235.136.136 ( talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

 Not done. I don't see anything wrong with the coordinates currently in the article (other than their being rather overprecise for such a large feature). If you have a specific error in mind, please explain exactly what it is in a new thread containing the {{ geodata-check}} template. Deor ( talk) 10:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Most of the civilian population (over 800) of the Aleutians and Pribilovians were interned by the United States in camps in the Alaska Panhandle.BYDA US???? A.NOGUD MAP?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.32.125.141 ( talk) 07:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

There reads: The largest islands in the Aleutians are Attu (the furthest from the mainland), and Unalaska, Umnak, and Akun in the Fox Islands.
The largest of those is Unalaska Island, the only of those over 1000 square miles. However, strangely, that article says Unalaska is the second-largest island in the Fox Islands group and the Aleutian Islands. If that is true, then at least one island is missing from the sentence. 82.141.73.182 ( talk) 21:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The missing island is Unimak, the largest. It was not on the list. I removed Akun from this sentence (it's less that 70 sq mi) and replaced with Unimak, and fixed the sentence referenced above with the proper island (someone had at least deleted the sentence). Kgdickey ( talk) 09:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The article currently reads,

The native people refer to themselves as Unangan, and are now generally known by most non-natives as the " Aleut". . . The 2000 U.S. Census recorded a population of 8,162 on the islands, of whom 4,283 were living in the main settlement of Unalaska.

This simply does not ring true. Perhaps it's a matter of defining "the main settlement of Unalaska"? If, by that, we mean Unalaska, Alaska, there's no possible way it's true. Maybe it refers to the entirety of Unalaska Island, but even they I'd have my doubts. I want to see a specific source, and not a vague reference to the decennial census. Un sch ool 03:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply