 Usually, as has been noted, identity theorists who favor (i) above have this preference because they repudiate propositions as that term is being employed here: that is, they repudiate propositionally structured reference-level entities. There are several reasons why such identity theorists feel uncomfortable with propositions when these are understood to be reference-level entities. There is a fear that such propositions, if they existed, would have to be construed as truth-makers; and identity theorists, as we have seen, want to have nothing to do with truth-makers (Dodd 2008a: 112). That fear could perhaps be defused if facts were also located at the level of reference for true propositions to be identical with. This move would take us to an identity theory in the style of (ii) or (iii) above. Another reason for suspicion of reference-level propositions is that commentators often follow Russell in his post-1904 aversion specifically to false objectives, that is, to false propositions in re (Russell 1966: 152; Cartwright 1987: 79–84). Such entities are often regarded as too absurd to take seriously as components of reality (so T. Baldwin 1991: 46; Dodd 1995: 163; 1996; 2008a: 66–70, 113–14, 162–6). More especially, it has been argued that false propositions in re could not be unities, that the price of unifying a proposition at the level of reference would be to make it true: if this point were correct it would arguably constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the whole idea of reference-level propositions, since it is plausible to suppose that if there cannot be false reference-level propositions, there cannot be true ones either (see Dodd 2008a: 165). If, on the other hand, one is happy with the existence of propositions in re or reference-level propositions, both true and  false,[6]  one is likely to favor an identity theory in the style of (ii) or (iii). And, once one has got as far as jettisoning (i) and deciding between (ii) and (iii), there must surely be a good case for adopting (iii): for if one has admitted propositionally structured entities both at the level of sense (as senses of declarative sentences) and at the level of reference (propositions), there seems no good reason not to be maximally liberal in allowing identities between entities of these two types and, respectively, sense- and reference-level kinds of fact (or fact-like entities).