I would have used the phrase "nods to simulation" instead, as that covers the whole gambit of realism, verisimilitude, etc. Come to think of it, I have used "nods to simulation" more than once in these conversations since 4E arrived, most often in conjuction with "4E removed them."
In any case, "nods" is the important word. And here, I think Monte is on the right track, but at least in this column hasn't acknowledged what "nods" being important means. (To be fair, maybe is trying to be objective here so as to not skew the survey responses.) Because providing "nods" to something is implicitly also not providing the thing itself.
A long list of weapons with slightly different damage expressions and otherwise modest differences is precisely a "nod". It is only "realistic" to someone that hasn't thought much about it, read about it, or has but doesn't much care. In a rough and ready way, it is correct in some sense (being on the business end of a sword is often likely to be slightly worse if the blade is heavier and longer) but skimpy on nuance (things that determine whether or not you end up on the business end in the first place, and what kind of strike was delivered, and in what conditions).
It is when you move into things like weapon speed factors that it stops becoming a nod and tries to be more than that. Technically, distinguishing reach, handedness, etc. are also more than nods, though at different points on the scale. (This is hardly an exact science.) If you start accurately modeling things like realistic load speeds and training times/efforts for longbow and crossbows, you've definitely moved out of the arena of nods into full bore simulation.
I'm all for nods that don't impede the main focus of the game and/or gameplay itself. Bonus points if they don't take up much space and/or are truly optional. Penalty points the longer they go on and the more intrusive they become. That is, for me, "nods to simulation" are distinctily a second order concern.
And just to be clear, for anyone that might be confused by some of my past statements along those lines, I do value that 4E ruthlessly excluded these nods, because it has forced this conversation. Way too often, people have treated the nods as, "if some are good, more deeper and intrusive ones, are better--especially the ones that I want." (Not said that plainly, of course.)
Nods that try to be more than nods, but fail, are the worst of all possible outcomes. You get something large and clunky that few really like. But the handful of people that want "more realism" in that particular area will get inordinately attached to it, making it harder to satisfy everyone else (those that value nods generally and those that just want them kept second order). And such things are seldom optional or very playable.