"Accepted by virtually every historian"

whether this means universal truth.

No.

History rarely speaks in terms of absolute truth.

Instead, historians speak of scholarly consensus.

Suppose 95% of historians agree that:

The Industrial Revolution greatly increased factory employment.

Then this becomes a broad scholarly consensus.

That does not mean no one disagrees.

It means that the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports the proposition.

What is "broad scholarly consensus"?

It means that numerous historians, writing independently over many decades, have reached substantially the same conclusion.

For example:

E. P. Thompson

Eric Hobsbawm

David Landes

Joel Mokyr

Robert Allen

They differ on many details, but they all accept that industrialization greatly expanded factory employment.

That convergence constitutes a scholarly consensus.

Do you still need citations?

Yes.

Even when discussing a consensus, academic writing normally cites representative authorities.

The citation is not because readers doubt the claim, but because scholarship acknowledges its sources.