I argue with my coworkers often about it. I think the problem is that what Java calls references, works more like C/C++ pointer, rather than C++ reference. The name similarity but differing behaviour is what's confusing people.
What makes you say this? You can't do pointer arithmetic on Java references, and the internal memory model is completely obscured. C++ and Java references look similar to and are accessed like variables. The major difference is that Java references can be reassigned, like a pointer, which is necessary in a language without true pointers.
In Java, a reference is a value, it can be stored in an ArrayList like a normal value, you can operate on the reference itself (reseating it, comparing two of them, comparing to null), there is not always a referent.
I fail to see what possible value this has.
When actually communicating with people for the purpose of conveying ideas (not just for fun), it's best to avoid terminology where not everyone has the same understanding of the definition. Open discussions about terminology are also a good way to identify these types of ambiguous terms and possibly come up with technical terms that everyone agrees on.