The thing is, there's a concept in the English language called connotation and denotation. Denotation is the literal meaning of a word or phrase. Connotation is the subjective meaning of a word and it implies an underlying meaning beyond the literal. For example, someone described as stubborn could be called strong-willed or pig-headed. They both mean stubborn in the literal sense but strong-willed implies admiration for the level of someone's will, while pig-headed implies frustration in dealing with someone. While one could spin the individual words to mean basically the idea of a "clean" conception (e.i. without the stain of blood or other bodily fluids), the concept being attributed is a parthenogenic virgin birth. The term immaculate conception already exists in the context of a virgin birth and it is used for something else. You can call a room or a table immaculate and just mean clean. When you are referring to an incarnation (the proper term), the phrase immaculate conception already has meaning and baggage relating to a specifically Catholic dogma. No one else uses the term immaculate conception for that or any other idea. Think of it like, say, a copyright of a common word. You could open a garage to fix cars and call it "Apple Autocare", or you could open a hairstyling salon and name it "Apple Hairstyling". You can't start a record company and call it Apple because that's taken and you can't start a computer company and call it Apple because that's taken, also. Do you see my point? Immaculate is a word and conception is a word. Put them together and relate it to a virgin birth and you've violated copyright, if you will.

Another point is that it is not truly in the general vernacular except as a mistake. Even when used mistakenly, it always refers to the concept of a virgin birth in comparison to Jesus. As it is an exclusively Catholic concept and not just descriptive words put together to describe parthenogenesis (in other words, you won't ever hear a scientist or teacher use it when referring to amphibians or reptiles that spawn with asexual procreation), it does imply a comparison to Christ and a divine involvement. So when used in context of an Anakin Skywalker, it is still meant to imply or invoke a comparison to Jesus and divinity. Once a person is educated on the matter, he should use the terms correctly rather than perpetuate the incorrect usage. When used incorrectly, it comes across as ignorance in furtherance of appearing erudite. It's like how you can tell someone has little experience with computers when they refer to the picture on their desktop as their "screen saver". On a computer, the screen saver is a specific program that comes on when the computer is idle for a period of time to prevent the screen from burning in (on old CRT monitors) it's not the picture on their computer screens behind their icons. Changing the background of the desktop is one of the first things a person usually learns on a computer and they are often get confused by the terms.

The proper term is incarnation, which means literally "embodied in flesh", and it refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature (generally a human) who is the material manifestation of an entity or force whose original nature is immaterial. That describes Anakin being conceived of the Force in a most succinct and descriptive way without involving any specific denomination or baggage.

For the record, I really didn't mean it to be a major thing, just a minor correction like fixing a typo. The only reason that it's gone on is that there's a difference in arguing differences of interpretation and correcting outright error. You aren't going to find an authoritative source that doesn't say what we've been saying. It's actually one of those things that rarely gets discussed educationally where the author doesn't point out the common error; like when someone is writing educationally about snakes, they almost always point out how snakes are not slimy despite the general perception that they might be.

Anyway, I've said all I care to on the subject. Do what you will, I suppose. If you were going to be published professionally, you would most likely receive the same comments from your editor. We love your work and greatly admire it. You've actually done the research and backed up things I've said for years but with so much more detail and dedication. It's nice to have an authoritative source for exposing Lucas' mischaracterizations of his conception of Star Wars over the years. We're just helping correct typos. You've put in all the hard work and love.