 The question facing the correspondence theorist is now: if such propositionally structured entities are truth-makers, are they truth-makers for sentences, thoughts, or propositions? It is at this point that the identity theorist finds the correspondence theory unsatisfactory. Consider first the suggestion that the worldly fact that Socrates is wise is the truth-maker for the reference-level proposition that Socrates is wise (see, e.g., Jago 2018: 72–3, and passim). There surely are such facts as the fact that Socrates is wise: we talk about such things all the time. The problem would seem to be not with the existence of such facts, but rather with the relation of correspondence which is said by the version of the correspondence theory that we are currently considering to obtain between the fact that Socrates is wise and the proposition that Socrates is wise. As emerges from this way of expressing the difficulty, there seems to be no linguistic difference between the way we talk about propositions and the way we talk about facts, when these entities are specified by “that” clauses. That suggests that facts just are true propositions. If that is right, then the relation between facts and true propositions is not one of correspondence—which, as Frege famously observed (Frege 1918–19: 60 [1977: 3]; cf. Künne 2003: 8; Milne 2010: 467–8), implies the distinctness of the relata—but identity.