Hi,
you're correct that this was one of my disagreements with Julie. I actually agree with Julie that a strictly historical article should not be laced with modern moral judgments (i.e. "women were treated unfairly, according to .."). It's perfectly OK to include these, in attributed form, in a designated section or separate article.
However, the major disagreement was whether certain *interpretations* of the facts, especially of causes/effects - not moral judgments - should be presented, or whether they should be regarded as "outdated" and discarded. For example, was the church anti-scientific to make sure that its own viewpoint was the only one that could prevail? Was it the cause of the irrationalism of the period? Or was it simply an institution that grew out of the chaos that followed the decline of the Roman empire, one that brought order into chaos and preserved knowledge that would otherwise have been lost? (A frequent relativistic/apologist interpretation.) These are both not moral judgments, although moral judgments could be derived from both.
I think that any interpretation that is properly attributed and verifiable has a place on Wikipedia. Otherwise, our only alternative is to use whatever is the "scientific consensus" (what is scientific? when is consensus reached? do we ban all previous interpretations? do we ban all non-scientific interpretations, e.g. creationism? does the English Wikipedia concern the American scientific consensus or the African one?). Not all interpretations have the same place, but IMHO it is especially the extreme fringe (e.g. the theory that 200 years of medieval history were invented) that should be condemned to the fringes of Wikipedia.
In general, I am against *deleting* attributed, verifiable information.
Regards,
Erik