I noticed a few questions where people have provided links to translated texts which contain the material needed for answering a question. These cases seem to be treated (even if by the people themselves) differently at source -- some consider it acceptable, others not.
An example can be found here where one of the comments refers to material in Catalan which answers the question but the answer wasn't posted because the material is not in English; an alternative can be found here where I answered using source material in French with Google Translate translations (though which didn't seem too far off the mark).
Question: Should an explicit policy on using translated source material in answers be described, and, if so, what should it be?
As Anglosphere historians necessarily focus more on English, American, Canadian, etc, English-derived histories (or, in other words, what sells in modern Anglophone countries; see example below for mentions of 'Teutonic Order' in English texts vs 'Deutschen Ordens' in German texts, but of course Greece and Rome are also very popular in English popular narrative histories), it can be impossible to find an English source of the same quality as a local one. Therefore, to answer questions relating to other places in similar detail, I think allowing translated source material is essential and should be explicitly allowed.
However, we should also be careful about the level of translations and want these to be sourced (e.g., "Google" vs "personal" vs "official", etc...) and to allow these to be improved over time. Also, in all of these cases we should preserve both the original as well as the translation, so both versions can be looked at by people interested in the questions (and the translation improved where mistakes are spotted).