Arguing that nobody who might be professionally expected to look at a box plot can be reasonably expected to understand how box plots are defined doesn't make a compelling case that using them is a good idea.
It is actually a fascinating argument that shows how little of what is being decided is based on actual data ( or at least our understanding of it ), but rather that data visualization is being used to push already pre-approved decisions with data being used merely as a 'for' argument.
I agree that if there is an indication that if most professionals don't really know what boxplot is supposed communicate, maybe it should not be used.
If the method how the plot boxes are calculated is not clear (this thread references at least two different methods), you'll need to explicitly write it down which methods you did use.
> this thread references at least two different methods
No, as the sidethread comment notes, there is only one way you can compute quartiles. You seem to be arguing that the correct thing to do is to impute them, and that calculating them is such a deviant practice that it would need to be specially remarked on.
That might be what you were saying from the beginning, but the only thing that that would establish is that you're completely out of touch with reality. Box plots are made for visualizing quartiles.
Your theory would imply, among other things, that the median line going through the box part of a box plot always divides it in half, which obviously is not the case.
