half of it is pure quackery. that wouldn't be so bad if it didn't mix up the nonsense with the reasonable parts, the reader could still stick to the latter. But mixing up respectable 19th century scholarship, Elst's tendentious speculations and complete loonies like Frawley, Knapp and anonymous websites makes it essentially useless. 
"OIT supporters believe that the idea that Sanskrit is a language originating with Central Asian nomadic people who have been described as "primitive", is very improbable"
— this is from Frawley's "Sanskrit is supposed to be the language of primitive invaders", so first of all it belongs in the Frawley section. What "OIT supporters"? Schlegel? And then Frawley doesn't even himself call the invaders "primitive", he alleges that "AIT supporters" allege that invaders were "primitive", so it remains unclear who "has described" Indo-Iranians as "primitive" in the first place. Frawley doesn't understand the first or last thing about linguistics of course, he is just piling on rhetorics. therefore this article has just two possibilities:
separate the loony stuff (Frawley, Knapp and friends) into a separate "popular/religious literature" section, and keep the main part focussed on scholarly discussion (peer-reviewed linguistic journals and the like)
tag the whole article as pseudoscientific Hindutva Cateogry:propaganda and be done with it
but do not keep mixing up reasonable arguments with all this batshit.  (ᛏ)