I'm curious to see what makes you think all of them are wrong?

I didn't say that I think all of them are wrong, I can believe different groups count generations differently. Some stats scale generations, others just count by the old models set ages ago. Many are out of date, but are still used. There is little consensus, though as you mentioned, the most consistent thing everyone agrees on is the Boomer's generation. But most systems for tracking this data started in the mid 40s, so it should be pretty obvious why that is the case.

Either way, there is little consensus on those systems, but those weren't how this conversation started. How it started was that I responded to something incorrect you said, but then I myself was incorrect as well. I incorrectly said that every generation is 30 years, when what I should have said is that the last two generations in countries with high quality of life were 30 years. I didn't expect to be talking to a pedant, but that's the internet for you.

The issue is that "X" and "Y" generations have no super solid duration period among measurement systems. So we could be sitting here arguing for days. Not recommended. Since there is no "official" measure for the two (or some argue, three) generations following the boomers, I'd say just read whatever data you have and roll with it. But keep in mind what a generation actually is. It's not some static measure. You wouldn't even measure cattle in such cut-and-dried iterations. There is no intrinsic value in static measurements of living beings. To get good data, the system needs to adapt to change. The tools to do this were set down ages ago, they're just not very good.

Either way, I guess this discussion just shows how broken our population tracking really is. There is no centralization, no consistent measure, and no stationary points from which to derive facts. But that's humanity for you.

Anyway, good talk. You have made some good points.