A fact from Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
An investigation of archived copies on the Wayback Machine shows that up until 14 June 2015 the official site continued to list Rihm's In-Schrift 2 as the prize-winner for 2015. By 15 July, the entry had been replaced by "No Award Given". There is a more than ample number of sources online documenting the announcement of the award, but I can find nothing about the prize being refused by Rihm or withdrawn by the Grawemeyer committee. The official Grawemeyer website has been offline for the past two days, with a message saying it is being "updated". No doubt more information will emerge in the near future. In the meantime, I notice that this change has only been made on the English Wikipedia, and the ample documentation of the original announcement has been removed without comment. Given the current lack of information, perhaps this remains the best course of action to pursue but, once the truth of the matter has emerged, surely those references need to be restored, together with a full explanation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
