What does and does not have intrinsic spin?
An electron's got intrinsic spin, and so has a proton. And a neutron, which will decay into an electron and a proton and an antineutrino. So anything made of matter has got it. Matter as we know it Jim.
Wikipedia Spin (Physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) says: "In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei."
Yep. But check out the Wikipedia Einstein-de Haas effect article: "the Einstein–de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics."
But it doesn’t say that only those items have intrinsic spin. Is this list comprehensive? Or do other things have intrinsic spin?
Anything made of matter ought to be fairly comprehensive. But you can take it a step further. Think about a cyclone. It has intrinsic spin on another level, and this spin is intrinsic because it makes it what it is. Take away the spin, and all you're left with is wind. And how would you do this? With an anticyclone.
(as opposed to orbital angular momentum?)
Orbital angular momentum is something like a cyclone swirling around an anticyclone. Don't worry about it.
For example: molecules? Buckyballs? Ball Bearings? Schrodinger cats?
Yep. Neutrinos are a bit of a complication, best save them for another day. Meanwhile think electrons and positrons. If you took away the spin, all you're left with is light. We call it annihilation.
Wikipedia Spin (Physics) goes on to say: "Spin is one of two types of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the other being orbital angular momentum. Orbital angular momentum operator is the quantum-mechanical counterpart to the classical notion of angular momentum: it arises when a particle executes a rotating or twisting trajectory (such as when an electron orbits a nucleus). The existence of spin angular momentum is inferred from experiments, such as the Stern–Gerlach experiment, in which particles are observed to possess angular momentum that cannot be accounted for by orbital angular momentum alone".
Yep. Take a look at an old version of the Wikipedia Stern–Gerlach article. It contains a non-sequitur that says the electron can't be rotating like a planet, so it can't be rotating at all. That's wrong. Magnetic moment says its wrong. Of course it isn't rotating like a planet, it's a spin ½ particle. Duh!
Of course every large item has lots of electrons among other things and so it has spin due to the constituent electrons. I mean does the large object have any intrinsic spin of its own, beyond that inherited from its constituents.
Tornados have spin, so do whirlpools and cyclones. If they didn't they wouldn't be what they are. Other things spin too, like planets, but that spin doesn't make them what they are.
Arguing the other way is http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/
That article is the usual non-answer popscience that ends up with the non-sequitur: "they’d need to be spinning faster than the speed of light in order to produce the fields we see". Check out Goudsmit: "But don't you see what this implies? It means that there is a fourth degree of freedom for the electron. It means that the electron has a spin, that it rotates". But note that the electron isn't some billiard-ball thing that rotates. It's a 511keV electromagnetic wave in a Dirac's belt path. There's a major-axis rotation at c and a minor-axis rotation at half that rate, wherein the "and" acts like a multiplier. The end product looks like a standing wave. See atomic orbitals. Electrons exist as standing waves. Standing wave, standing field. See the Poynting vector for a static field:
Public Domain image by Michael Lenz, see Wikipedia
And I quote: "While the circulating energy flow may seem nonsensical or paradoxical, it is necessary to maintain conservation of momentum."
In its derivation that every three dimensional object is either a fermion or a boson, where it states: "By the way, notice that at no point has mass been mentioned! This result applies to anything and everything. Particles, groups of particles, your mom, whatevs!”
If it's got this intrinsic spin, it's got mass. Think of photon momentum as resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c. What might you call resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving in a closed path like that Poynting vector?
Is everything either a fermion or a boson? No matter how large? And thus perhaps possess its own intrinsic spin? Or does this only apply to total angular momentum and not intrinsic spin. I’m confused. Help!
No, everything is not either a fermion or a boson. Space isn't a fermion or a boson, nor is a black hole. As for your confusion, remember the wave nature of matter. Fermion and bosons re just two different wave configurations, that's all.