You cannot judge a language and platform merely by legacy software. By that token, almost everything today is horribly broken, even trendier technologies like NodeJS or Go. You'd have to judge C by K&R standards, and C++ as the horrible preprocessor it initially was. It makes no sense!
You must judge Java by the developments of the last decade at the very least. Otherwise you're ignoring the practitioners.
Java hasn't used XML in ages and you cannot fault it for legacy apps. You could similarly complain about the horror of EJBs -- sure, but the industry has moved on and acknowledged they were a mistake.
The problem with judging a language by how it was a decade ago is that you're going to be left claiming absurd, outdated things. Imagine if I claimed I didn't like Java because it lacks generics, or because it lacks lambdas, or because I really, really dislike working with EJBs, or because working with Java means "working with a lot of XML" (this would flunk you in an interview, by the way).
Imagine if I complained about Linux and all I used as an argument was the Unix Haters Handbook.
Imagine if I complained about Windows and the most recent version I had used was Windows 95.
That depends on what you want from the judgement doesn't it?
If you want to be able to know the theoretical things you could do with the language, I think your definition is right.
If you want to know the most likely experience you would have using the language, I think mine is right.
I think it also depends on what circumstances you're using the language. Spinning up a new project probably lends itself more towards your definition. If you're looking to join an existing project, mine is probably more useful.
I am judging a technology by its amount of foot guns. That's why I am more fan of languages with only one way of doing things (and even that gets increasingly rare).
Java is a pretty solid tech and the JVM is one of the best runtimes in the world. But it does offer you infinite possibilities to write awful code and that made me less interested in it with time.
I don't disagree with you there are better languages which have learned from Java's mistakes, and I don't think I've argued it's the best one. Just that it's extremely successful, a good platform, and that programming in Java doesn't have anything to do with flinging XMLs like someone claimed.
You must judge Java by the developments of the last decade at the very least. Otherwise you're ignoring the practitioners.
Java hasn't used XML in ages and you cannot fault it for legacy apps. You could similarly complain about the horror of EJBs -- sure, but the industry has moved on and acknowledged they were a mistake.