The name of this specific training level has been a topic of controversy within the diving community for many years. The crux of this debate is in the interpretation of the word 'Advanced' in its title, and what is the proper application or use of this adjective.
One school of thought on the matter defends the use of the word Advanced, explaining that it is describing the training accurately as being more comprehensive (i.e. more advanced) than the basic entry level training.
Rather a disingenuous and sophist approach favored by those who created the problem.
The opposing school of thought is that the use of the word 'Advanced' is essentially deceptive marketing, as graduates of the class very commonly then refer to themselves as "Advanced Divers". However, the training standards are not sufficient to raise a recreational diver (particularly the novice diver to whom the class is frequently marketed) to traditional expectations of holistic dive mastery, including the military definition.
That (essentially deceptive marketing) was why it was done. The military definition, at least in the US, is virtually unknown, so I'd say it played no part. The critical issue was that other agencies all had "Advanced Diver" courses, and no-book-work, dive only, intermediate classes called Sport Diver, or Open Water II, or Silver Diver or some such. But one agency then chose to create their "Advanced Diver" course and equlibrate it in terms of requirements to everyone else's intermediate course.
This is relevant because in the USA, civilian dive training and standards essentially originated from the US Navy, and the diving community continues to equate 'advanced' with 'expert'. As such, while it is agreed that the training is indeed more than basic, it is insufficient to create an Advanced (i.e. Expert) Diver.
It is exceedingly well documented that the use of open circuit scuba in the US began at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and was picked up by the US Navy from there. As far as recreational diving is concerned, the knowledge was transferred from Scripps to LA County and then on to YMCA and later NAUI.
Specifically with regard to the PADI 'Advanced' certification standard, a 2006
coroner's court in the United Kingdom heard
expert evidence to the effect that "I do not believe that someone with eight dives should be classified as an advanced diver. It is madness."
Quite true.
Another factor that relates to this controversy is NAUI's name changes from "Open Water II" to "Advanced Scuba Diver." This change was reportedly intended to address customer confusion as to the comparative rigors of training required to earn specific certifications. However, it initially caused some confusion within the diving community.
Also true, but deceptive.
NAUI's program was a 38 hr. OW I, followed by a six dive OW II, followed by Advanced Diver. Another agency that had a similar sequence eliminated its upper level course and replaced the title on its middle course with "Advanced Open Water Diver," to gain a competitive advantage. Some time after that NAUI followed suit, in what I feel was a truly chicken-$hit, clutching at straws, move.
Well, glory be, Wiki is wrong. After I'm done here, I'll go fix it ... that's what I love about wiki.