In practice it would probably be best to use the terminology of the country you are visiting. A visa is a document that says “Visa” on it. Things like US ESTA, Schengen ETIAS, Canadian eTA, etc., are not called visas by the jurisdictions that issue them. If a country makes it easy to apply for visas online without an interview, and calls that a “visa,” then it’s a visa.
Some other countries don’t have advance electronic approval, but do distinguish between visa-on-arrival and visa-free transit, and it would be advisable to follow each country’s terminology. Australia does refer to its ETA and eVisitor programs as a “visa” in official literature.
Otherwise you could end up confused and say the wrong thing. For example if you arrive at the border and the officer asks “Do you have a visa?” and you answer “Yes” but only have a travel authorization, you have suddenly made a false statement and could be in trouble.
Well, with centralised IT systems, it doesn't need to be a physical sticker on your passport but rather an authorization number associated with your passport number (more secure than relying on someone not faking the sticker). But the vetting process is still there. Fundamentally isn't it the exact same thing (a sort of an electronic helmet)?
Wikipedia almost agrees with you, but the "on a passport" part doesn't connect.
>A visa (from the Latin charta visa, meaning "paper that has been seen")[1] is a conditional authorization granted by a country to a foreigner, allowing them to enter, remain within, or to leave that country.
Why does it matter to you if it goes into the passport or not? If I recall correctly my F1 Visa for the US didn't go into my passport either, but was a separate document.
When I hear "visa" I think of mailing something to a consulate or going there personally for an application, paying a good chunk of money and waiting weeks to hopefully get approval.
I guess the point is that they need different words for this two-tier system. If they currently use "visa" to mean the kind where you have to show up for an interview and have something glued into your passport, then saying this is not-a-visa makes some sense.
There tends to be a massive difference between the effort required to get a visa, and the effort required to get ESTA.
ESTA roughly as annoying as booking a plane ticket if you don't already have an account with a pre-filled profile, and usually granted instantly.
A visa request, even if done online, can easily cost you many hours filling out forms, scanning documents, etc., and often takes weeks to process.
It's also much rarer for an ESTA to be denied than for a visa to be denied.
There's a reason why passportindex.org distinguishes mostly between "real" visa requirements, and mostly pro-forma stuff like ESTA, visa-on-arrival etc.
Plenty of countries have tourist visas that you can easily get online for a small amount of money. Exactly like the US's not-a-visa. For example Turkey's tourist visa costs $20.
Some other countries don’t have advance electronic approval, but do distinguish between visa-on-arrival and visa-free transit, and it would be advisable to follow each country’s terminology. Australia does refer to its ETA and eVisitor programs as a “visa” in official literature.
Otherwise you could end up confused and say the wrong thing. For example if you arrive at the border and the officer asks “Do you have a visa?” and you answer “Yes” but only have a travel authorization, you have suddenly made a false statement and could be in trouble.