I think this is a duplicate of a 9-year-old meta question: If a claim is commonly accepted, does questioning it require a notable counter-claim??
I think my answer here is still "good law". However, I am wary that community standards may change, so I don't want to close this question as a duplicate.
A similar question was raised in 2019: How notable must doubt be??
In 2012, I wrote:
We should continue to demand that evidence of notability should be provided for a claim that the OP is skeptical about.
If the OP, in good faith, claims that they do not believe a claim, we shouldn't demand that evidence that their view-point is notable, even if it flies in the face of scientific consensus. It is reasonable to (politely) question the reasons for their maverick point-of-view, to establish that good-faith.
As before, if the OP believes in the original claim, then the whole question doesn't belong on Skeptics.SE.
I saw some comments discussion before that suggested that this policy implies that you could ask if, for example, Paris was the capital of France, but not if it wasn't. Clearly that isn't sensible, if it were true.
But I don't believe it is true. I have commonly reversed the direction of a true/false question (before answers were posted) just to simplify the title.
If a meme went around saying "Paris is not really the capital of France. After WWII, the paperwork was filled in wrongly, so ancient law means Vichy is still the capital." then "Is Paris [not] the capital of France?" would be a legitimate question to address on this site.
But if a meme went around saying "Paris, the capital of France, is home to the Eiffel Tower" and someone asks "Is Paris [not] the capital of France?" it seems reasonable to try to ask what has triggered the doubt.