Tearhunter used to say that, as long as there is any of those physical reactions to emotion (lump in throat, tears in eyes, anything) then it should count as crying. I think that is technically correct, but I think there is more to it.
I think that the definition of crying is a group decision, implicitly negotiated with the people around you. If I see someone who I think is crying, I can’t treat them as if they were crying unless they also agree that they’re crying. Eventually, through little interactions like this, a peer group can settle on a definition of crying that they all follow, often without explicitly saying anything about it.
In my case (friends, wife, family), we consider someone to be crying if tears overflow from the eyes due to emotion. I think we settled on this definition because we get teary pretty frequently, and it would be too emotionally exhausting to treat someone as if they were crying just because they got a little choked up. So, we give each other kind of a “grace period” when they’re tearing up or choking up. If they are able to blink the tears away, we don’t consider it crying. Those other elements that you listed don’t need to be present, but they help us judge the intensity of the crying.
I’ve been in situations where a person didn’t think they were crying, but they were being treated as if they were crying, and they became even more upset about that. This is a really interesting topic.