I thought I already explained this:
What do you expect the users would do? Read every closed issue at Github? I ready them almost every day, and even I missed this one. Check every config file, including /etc/apt/sources? I didn’t, because the documentation was saying it was plain Debian and that Qubes wasn’t FSF-certified “because Debian was not certified”. The docs even said that Qubes was free software. There are already too many things to learn about Qubes even for me right now as a user. It’s impossible to verify every single detail. Maybe I also do not value free software sufficiently, too, who knows 
The docs are sifnificantly improved now, thanks to @adw, but they still call the Debian template “Debian” without explaining how it was changed from the official ISO. On their official website, Debian put “free software” as the first reason to use Debian. I believe it goes against their values to do what Qubes project is doing here, unless the docs at least mention that non-free software is added to the template. Obviously I represent neither Qubes nor Debian and my opinion is just an opinion of a random Internet-poster. But it seems there are other people in the Qubes Community who agree with me.
Debian is a free OS, by definition. Qubes project is calling something non-free “Debian”, misleading its users. Yes, some users do not care about freedom. But you should not change the definitions of the underlying operating systems without telling it, if you want to earn trust of the users.
Note that it’s not about my preferences. I personally can easily remove all components which I do not like. But new users will read “Debian” and expect “Debian”, but get “Debian Unofficial” instead. It already mislead a few users (which is why this topic exists!).
I guess it was supposed to be a joke, but AFAIK my laptop can run “Libre Qubes” securely. As I said above, the microcode updates are included into the coreboot, and no proprietary firmware is required in the kernel to run my device.
Rant about "Libre Qubes"
I wish Qubes projejct would not be as hostile to Purism as r/purism subreddit and maybe even actually create Libre Qubes together with them, which would runs on Librem devices. It would probably be a great advertisement for the Qubes project. I don’t even expect it would take any serious effort, although I might be mistaken here. Man can dream. 
How is Qubes security improved by adding non-free software to the Debian template?
Thank you very much for this. I think this resolves many inconsistencies and is well worded (although I am not an expert on licensing, too). One minor thing I would suggest: Put sentence
"Qubes OS is provided at no cost (gratis), though donations are greatly appreciated"
to the end of the answer, otherwise it makes the impression that “free” in the question is mainly about cost, whereas the main meaning accepted by the Community is about freedom.
Debian are using their own definition and link to the FSF definition, too.
This is where we disagree, and it seems I’m not the only one who expects that “Debian” means “Debian official”. However, I did not find a clear wording about it on the Debian website, except about labeling CDs.
Off-topic discussion about Wikipedia
When I say that it’s not a source, I mean this and this. As reliable sources, one should use the references instead, and I find them great on the discussed page.
This is exactly why I said unless the article is unfinished, or has edit wars. I did not imply any guarantee of correctness in a general case.
I only said that the specific Wikipedia page is a representative sample of the Community’s opinion, because I read a few Community websites for other distros and found no contradictions. The links were also well compiled. If you have evidence that it’s not the case, I would be interested to see it. I did not generalize here, although if you rely on the references, not text, Wikipedia pages are often quite good.
From your quote, it’s unclear to me which statement you mean. (But I don’t think it’s sufficiently important for you to spend your time on explanaitions.)