Disagreed. To be "irresponsible" one first needs a responsibility, and I don't think Martin has any responsibility on the matter. He has no authority, he isn't a historian or a linguist; he's a storyteller.

I repeat, the most that can be inferred of him as a person regarding his story and his comments on it (based on what's said on the matter in this article) is that he's ignorant of his own ignorance, and a blowhard (IMO).

> I don't think there is anywhere that Devereaux even implied maliciousness, just irresponsibility and moral failing.

I don't see how saying that someone has "moral failings" is not calling them "malicious". At most, it can be argued that "malicious" is a stronger word, but at that point we're arguing tone. The intent is similar.

For instance, I only used the word "malice" because that's how the saying goes. It was a little hyperbolic in context, but you can replace "malice" with "moral failing" in my previous comment if you so wish[1]; I don't think the message I was trying to send would change if so.

But that's mostly beside the point, I take it you agree with my original comment then: the article does have a negative moral judgment of Martin. The person I originally replied to asserted that there wasn't.

[1]: "don't attribute to moral failing what can be attributed to incompetence".

If I am:

1. Incompetent at driving

2. Ignorant of #1

3. Go out driving, putting others lives at risk

I would argue that this is a non-malicious moral failing.

RE: Responsibility

I think all people engaging in public speech have a responsibility to be correct, inasmuch as incorrect speech is harmful. The larger the audience, the larger the responsibility. The author claims that it would have been a very small amount of research to inform GRRM about some of these inaccuracies, so making a public claim about accuracy with a large platform and not bothering to do the research is irresponsible.