"

Here are some websites that confirm the same stated statement;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/04/pitch-perfect-review
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/26/pitch-perfect-stars-talk-glee-comparisons/
https://michigandaily.com/arts/10pitch-perfect10
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/72364421.html
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=95310
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2251435/Pitch-Perfect-review-Rebel-Wilson-star-future-Fat-Amy-hits-right-note.html
Surely one of these must meet the qualifications. I curious though cannot facts and truths come from anyone, not just ""reliable sources"", as this term is subject to change, and is the sole idea of democracy, which is sole idea of Wikipedia, everyone contributes, the average is correct. Saying information that is verifiable, agreeable, repeatable, and reliable (not reliable source) I believe is a better qualification of posted information. I'm curious if you Googled the similarity between Glee and Pitch Perfect or if you just denied the request based off what you saw as erroneous use of a source. If so doesn't that seem more hierarchical, or Utilitarian, for this idea limits the available sources to be used as information, rather than all sources accepted. I use sources in the strict definition, as in this case, and perhaps others, the source is being misused as conclusion. If I have posted this statement in the incorrect area, I apologize."