I recently said something about the impossibility to prove the consistency of PA, and that Gentzen proved just this in 1936. Because I got critizised quite a bit, and realized that even famous mathematicians get critizized if they dare to mention this, I decided to read the original papers of Gentzen. I was deeply impressed how well explained they are, and how much more perspective they add. But I also realized that they are written in German, and that it will probably be impossible to express the thoughts with the same clarity in English, at least for me. Still

Recent Posts
 Logic without negation and falsehood December 11, 2016
 Logic without truth September 3, 2016
 Learning category theory: a necessary evil? April 3, 2016
Blogs I Follow
 the morning paper
 Ajit Jadhav's Weblog
 Gowers's Weblog
 Computational Semigroup Theory
 Math ∩ Programming
 ErdosNinth
 in theory
 Anurag's Math Blog
 Annoying Precision
 njwildberger: tangential thoughts
 Combinatorics and more
 What's new
 Bits of DNA
 Turing Machine
 My Brain is Open
 Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP
 Mathematical Formalities
not aware of any controversy on this. why do “even famous mathematicians get criticized if they dare mention” it?
I added links to the criticisms of Voevodsky’s position now.
Linking to the criticism of my statement turned out to be difficult, because the downvotes and comments were removed after I updated my answer. If I remember correctly, the criticism was targeted against my conclusion: “Well, even mathematical proofs depend on general context, implicit assumption and explicit premises.” Especially the part with the “implicit assumptions” was ill received.