<p>Dye pollution from industrial effluents continues to raise environmental and health concerns, particularly because colored wastewater is difficult to treat with conventional methods. Among available treatment technologies, adsorption is widely regarded as one of the most efficient and economically feasible methods for dye removal. To interpret adsorption performance and infer possible adsorption behavior, equilibrium isotherm and kinetic models are routinely applied and are often treated as methodological requirements in adsorption studies. However, recurring misconceptions in the selection, fitting, and interpretation of these models remain evident in the dye adsorption literature. This review provides a critical reassessment of classical and extended isotherm models (Langmuir, Freundlich, Temkin, Dubinin–Radushkevich, Redlich–Peterson, Sips, and Toth) as well as widely used kinetic models (pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order, intraparticle diffusion, Elovich, and Boyd). Beyond summarizing equations and assumptions, the review systematically identifies persistent interpretive patterns, including the overinterpretation of pseudo-second-order fitting as proof of chemisorption, the use of Dubinin–Radushkevich energy values as binary indicators of physical versus chemical adsorption, and the reliance on linearized forms and R² as primary criteria for model selection. By distinguishing statistical agreement from mechanistic validity and by outlining evidence-based boundaries for parameter interpretation, this work aims to provide clearer methodological guidance for adsorption modeling practice and to support more reliable analysis of dye removal systems.</p>