How is gnome minimalistic compared to say, a default conf of fvwm, dwm, i3, sway, weston? It has all the things most people need: access to wifi/bluetooth/launcher/a file manager, apps for nearly everything, etc.

Yes it is opinionated and there are stuff you can only configure using gconf or extensions if the default conf is not your preference but minimalistic it isn't.

Anyway I don't really understand the Gnome bashing when there are KDE and at least 6 or 7 other complete desktops availables for the users + millions of windows managers and wayland compositors for those that want a more personalized experience. The fact it is proposed as a default desktop by many distros who aren't forced to choose it is a testament at how sane its defaults are.

It is not like the situation in the windows and macOS where the desktop is almost impossible to customize without breaking stuff[1]

[1] I tried litestep on windows decades ago, it was mostly usable but it only changed the shell, windows were still managed the same terrible way as in vanilla windows.

It's minimalist in the sense that they have decided what you should be allowed to have as a user, and any extensions you rely on to bring back functionality that has been considered basic for 30 years will break with every version.

other environments can start as minimalist, but once you have set them up in the way you want, those features will rarely go away. usually that would be considered a bug/regression, not a feature.