Yes, it is tolerable the same way we tolerate Swami Vivekananda who said pretty much the same thing about the writers of Smṛtis and Purāṇas in a different context:
The Smritis and the Puranas are productions of men of limited intelligence and are full of fallacies, errors, the feelings of class and malice. Only parts of them breathing broadness of spirit and love are acceptable, the rest are to be rejected. The Upanishads and the Gita are the true scriptures; Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Chaitanya, Nanak, Kabir, and so on are the true Avataras, for they had their hearts broad as the sky — and above all, Ramakrishna.
The above is already quoted in a few answers:
Is Swami Vivekananda an authority on this site? Would it make you feel better if I replaced one of my citations with the above?
Can I cite Swami Dayananda Saraswati on this site? Is he an authority? Speaking about weapons like Brahmāstra that can be launched out of thin air, he said:
Question — Is it true what is written in Sanskrit books about the
arts of fire-arms ? Were there guns and muskets in the ancient time ?
Answer — Yes; it is. There were these fire-arms, for they are the
outcome of physical science.
Q — Were they made and used by the influence of gods' incantation?
A — No; it was rules and methods, called the mantras in Sanskrit,
according to which the different missiles and weapons were
manufactured. These mantras are a number of words, which cannot
produce any material object. If a man asserts that a mantra or charm
produces fire, he should be told that it will burn the tongue and
throat of the man who pronounces or mutters that mantra. He goes to
kill his enemy, so to speak, but he is himself destroyed. The truth
is, that the mantra is the secret as in rajmantri, which means the
person who holds the secrets of a state. So a mantra is the knowledge
of certain objects of the world, the application of which afterwards
produces various kinds of things, industries and arts.
The way I see it, you don't have a problem with Hindu gurus criticizing Hindu scriptures and their authors but with historians criticizing them. The more Western these historians are the more problematic it is for you to digest some of the things they say. So, instead of responding to their criticism in a mature way, you want to ban and censor them.
To those trying to delete my answer for all the wrong reasons, I strongly suggest they refrain from doing so. Remember that it only takes 3 votes to undelete it. Also, we really don't want to get into a situation where we start downvoting and silently deleting each other's answers by inventing arbitrary reasons when the real reason is that we don't like certain answers/references and we somehow want to censor them.