All images are edited. The question then becomes, "how much editing is acceptable?"
For "purists", the answer is usually very little to no more than is absolutely necessary to get the photo from the camera to a print, regardless of any flaws or problems with it. When it goes beyond that, they turn into snobs about it and say it's no longer photography. They pretend to be experts on where the line in the sand is, and are quick to judge others based on their own bias in that regard.
I'm not one of them. I have no limits, set no limits, judge nobody else's work with some preconceived limits or lines in the sand. If it involved a camera, it's photography to me.
All I really care about is the end result, not how it got there, other than from a technical and story interest point of view - I don't judge the end result based on how it got there. It either works or it doesn't. If someone worked their butt off and went through all kinds of time and effort and money, blood, sweat and tears, and the result looks like crap to me, they get no extra point for what all they went through to get that final result - it's still just crap. Likewise, if they had a cheap point and shoot camera on "P", shot in JPG with an on-board flash and did nothing else, but produced something that looks awesome to me, I don't ding them points for how easily they got there either - it's still awesome.
And when it's all said and done, I don't think it should matter to them what I or anyone else who isn't paying the bills thinks about their editing or their end results. As long as THEY like what they're making, I think they should keep doing it. If they're in business and their clients like what they're doing, they shouldn't care what anybody else thinks about it.
When others critique my work, I use and learn from what makes sense to me, and ignore what doesn't. I appreciate that they took the time and made the effort to leave their thoughts - whatever they are, but I don't take it to heart and live or die over them. I don't change everything I do just because somebody doesn't like it. They're just opinions from strangers who may or may not have a clue what the heck they're talking about, after all - so it's just no big deal.
My observations: A lot of people simply don't know what they're talking about anyway, especially on the internet, and even more especially on forums. WAY too many noobs think they're experts overnight because they've read a few things that others noobs who think they're experts have posted, and in no time flat they're passing around dumpsters full of crap information and opinions, while their own work totally sucks butt, which really says it all. I notice that they often fall into the "purist - line in the editing sand" crowd too, and I think it's because they don't have enough actual skill yet to make anything but the crap snapshots that come straight out of their cameras.
Watch and you'll see some that are always eager to critique and give advice to others, but rarely post their own work and, when they do, it's not very impressive. Some even claim to be professional photographers or ex-professional/retired professional photographers, but with the work they produce, it can be hard to see how in the world they could make a living at it. I think you should take their opinions and advice with a grain of salt - or maybe a whole container of it.