Arguing against spoilerficiation on the basis of age is contrary to our established policy
Such as it is, anyway; this is admittedly something we're not always very good about enforcing, but the meta discussion you linked to in this question does pretty clearly say:
- Don't consider the age of the material. There are still people new to Star Wars, the Matrix, and The Lord of the Rings, even though these could all be considered so established that the main points are common knowledge.
So, although philosophically I'm inclined to agree with you that it's probably not necessary in this case, it's good manners if nothing else, and I wouldn't go against the post's owner on this basis.
Arguing against spoilerification on the basis of "it won't ruin the story" seems...wrong
I studied 1984 in school (the first time I'd read it, no less), as I suspect many people did, and the entire time I was reading it, I knew exactly how it was going to end: Winston was going to succeed in his rebellion against Big Brother, and then do....something. I didn't expect him to dismantle the empire in an afternoon (I hadn't gotten into YA fiction, so I wasn't primed for that ending), but I figured he'd at least set out to form some kind of resistance movement.
Obviously I was completely wrong, which not only took me entirely by surprise, but is also quite central to many of the themes of the book, about the importance of individuality and the difficulty in resisting oppression.
I don't think it would have ruined the story for me, if I'd known the ending a head of time, but it certainly would have made it less immediately effective. And that's kind of the point of spoilerification; learning the ending doesn't (necessarily) ruin the story, but it does lessen the impact of significant events and character moments.
Arguing against spoilerification on the basis of readability is more reasonable, but the question would need to be largely re-written
As you accurately point out, there's very little useful information in the question that isn't spoilerified. This is frustrating for a reader, and ideally should be avoided.
However, that's hard to do with the question as written. There are probably ways the question could be re-written to be more useful, such as:
At one point, Winston is told that the Party doesn't "just" execute people; they break them down and teach them to love Big Brother. Then, when they're broken and soulless and content to be a member of the party, that's when they're executed.
At the end of the story,
after he's been forced to betray Julia, and sees her later and realizes his love for her has been destroyed, he realizes he loves Big Brother.
Does this mean that
Will soon be executed?
And there are probably better ways. I wouldn't be opposed to editing the question along these lines, but, since we largely respect post ownership, I'd want to do any editing in collaboration with the OP.