Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It is reasonable to expect clear and descriptive names that do not reach the level of verbosity that seems to be idiomatic in Java.
So for a more neutral example, CamelCaseClasses are "idiomatic" in Java, whereas classes_with_underscores are not. You could do either but the first is considered a more "correct" way to write Java, and is what you tend to see in the wild.
As to whether or not the whole persistence mechanism is "over-engineered", well... that's a separate question. I can see some of the arguments for it, but when I look at how much easier my life is with JPQL and Spring Data and the auto-generated JPA classes, versus hand-coding raw JDBC calls and raw SQL, I'll take the former every time. And I, for one, like transactions, and the way Spring lets me annotate my Service Facade classes to manage transactions for me.
The problem is that when you read modern code in other modern languages everything tends to be shorter, still descriptive, and still justifiable. It is something that you can't help but notice if you regularly use multiple languages.